Letter to an Attorney

Dear Attorney,

I am seeking legal advice regarding a situation that recently occurred in my business. A person posed as a buyer and wasted significant time and resources by pretending to place a legitimate order. Upon discovering that this person had no intention of completing the transaction, I learned that they have also done this to others. I want to warn fellow sellers by posting the person’s photo and details online.

Would it be legal for me to share their picture and actions on social media or other online platforms to alert other sellers? What laws or potential liabilities should I be aware of? I am concerned about any repercussions, including defamation or privacy claims.

Thank you for your guidance.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Seller

Legal Considerations on Posting a Bogus Buyer’s Picture Online Under Philippine Law

The concern of whether a seller can post a bogus buyer’s picture online raises significant legal questions under Philippine law. This matter primarily involves issues surrounding privacy, data protection, defamation, and possible cybercrime liabilities. Below is a comprehensive discussion of these legal aspects.

1. Privacy Laws in the Philippines

The right to privacy is a fundamental right enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution under Article III, Section 3, which protects individuals from undue intrusion into their personal lives. Additionally, Republic Act No. 10173 or the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (DPA) further safeguards personal information, including photographs, from unauthorized processing.

a. Personal Information and Sensitive Personal Information

Under the DPA, personal information includes any data that can directly identify a person, such as their name, photo, or contact information. Photos of individuals fall within this category. The processing of personal information without the subject’s consent is generally prohibited, except in certain situations.

b. Lawful Basis for Sharing Personal Information

The DPA recognizes instances where personal information can be shared, such as:

Compliance with legal obligations;
Protection of lawful rights and interests in legal proceedings;
Public interest or public safety; and
Prevention or prosecution of a crime.

While alerting other sellers to a fraudulent individual may seem like a legitimate reason, posting their photo publicly may not qualify under these exceptions. Sharing the image without proper justification or the person’s consent could constitute a violation of the DPA.

c. Penalties for Violating the Data Privacy Act

Violations of the DPA, such as unauthorized disclosure of personal information, may result in penalties, including:

Imprisonment ranging from six months to seven years;
Fines between ₱500,000 and ₱5,000,000, depending on the violation.

A seller posting a bogus buyer’s photo without legal grounds could face these penalties if the buyer files a complaint.

2. Defamation and Libel Considerations

Defamation involves harming another person’s reputation through false statements. In the context of online postings, this could result in a claim for libel under the Revised Penal Code and cyber libel under Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

a. Elements of Libel

To determine if an act constitutes libel, four elements must be proven:

Imputation of a crime, vice, or defect – Statements or images must ascribe to the person any wrongdoing or dishonorable act.
Publication – The defamatory material must be communicated to a third party.
Identification – The subject of the material must be identifiable.
Malice – There must be an intent to injure the reputation of the person.

Posting a bogus buyer’s picture alongside claims that they engaged in fraudulent activities could meet these elements if the allegations are false or unsubstantiated.

b. Cyber Libel and Enhanced Penalties

Posting defamatory content online escalates the offense to cyber libel, which carries harsher penalties:

Imprisonment of six years and one day to eight years;
Fines up to ₱1,000,000.

If the photo of the alleged bogus buyer is shared without verifying their intent or actions, the seller risks facing a cyber libel suit.

c. Defenses Against Libel or Cyber Libel

A seller accused of libel or cyber libel may invoke the following defenses:

Truth – If the allegations are proven true, this can serve as a defense.
Good Faith and Lack of Malice – Actions taken without intent to harm may mitigate liability.

However, reliance on these defenses requires strong evidence, such as documented proof of the bogus transaction.

3. Cybercrime and Online Vigilantism

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 also penalizes other forms of harmful online conduct, including cyber harassment and acts that invade privacy. While the seller’s intent may be to protect others, public shaming through posting photos online may be classified as cyber harassment or unjust vexation.

a. Risks of Online Vigilantism

Online vigilantism, such as publicly exposing alleged wrongdoers, often results in unintended consequences. These may include:

Damage to the reputation of innocent individuals if the information is inaccurate or incomplete;
Legal actions from the subject of the post; and
Violation of ethical guidelines on responsible use of social media.

Courts in the Philippines have emphasized that online platforms should not be used as alternative venues for justice.

4. Alternatives to Public Posting

Instead of posting the bogus buyer’s picture online, sellers can consider legal and safer alternatives:

Filing a Formal Complaint – File a complaint with the barangay or the police if fraud is suspected.
Reporting to E-Commerce Platforms – If the transaction occurred through an online marketplace, report the fraudulent activity to the platform’s administrators.
Issuing a General Warning – Post general reminders to other sellers about common scams or fraudulent practices without naming or identifying specific individuals.

These measures can help mitigate risks while addressing the issue responsibly.

5. Balancing Rights: Freedom of Expression vs. Right to Privacy

The Philippine Constitution guarantees freedom of expression under Article III, Section 4. However, this right is not absolute and must be balanced against other rights, such as the right to privacy and the right to due process. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that freedom of expression does not extend to defamatory or harmful acts.

In this context, posting a bogus buyer’s photo online may constitute an overreach of the seller’s right to expression, particularly if it infringes on the buyer’s right to privacy and reputation.

6. Key Takeaways and Legal Recommendations

To summarize:

Posting a bogus buyer’s picture online without their consent may violate the Data Privacy Act and expose the seller to penalties.
If the allegations are unproven, the seller risks facing a libel or cyber libel claim.
Online vigilantism, while well-intentioned, can lead to legal consequences and ethical concerns.
Sellers should pursue alternative legal remedies, such as filing a formal complaint or reporting the incident to proper authorities.

Recommendation: Before taking any action, consult with a qualified legal professional to evaluate the specifics of your case and ensure compliance with Philippine laws. Protecting your rights and reputation should be prioritized alongside addressing fraudulent behavior.