Every now and then, we stumble upon articles such as “10 Things You Shouldn’t Post on Social Media,” because ironically, while everyone can’t get enough of Facebook, everyone is sick and tired of Facebook!
Apparently, Atty. Roberto Guevarra did not get the memo when he posted the following remarks (along with other, more colorful, commentary on Dra. Vicki Belo and her medical practice):
Quack Doctor Becky Belo: I am out to get Puwitic Justice here! Kiss My Client’s Ass, Belo.
Boycott Belo, Flawless Reckless, Belat Essentials!!!!
[W]ell, with all the kababuyan of the Belo clinic, its money-making machines…
By way of background, Atty. Guevarra was the legal counsel of a disgruntled patient of Dra. Belo who had filed criminal cases against her for alleged botched surgical procedures. Atty. Guevarra was such an advocate for obtaining justice for his client that he posted a series of defamatory statements regarding Dra. Belo on Facebook. For this reason, Dra. Belo filed an administrative disbarment complaint against Atty. Guevarra. In his defense, Atty. Guevarra asserted the “private” nature of his posts in his “private” Facebook account and cited his constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy.
Can one really pull out the “right to privacy” card after posting on social media, specifically on Facebook’s wall?
In Belo-Henares v. Guevarra (A.C. No. 11394, December 1, 2016), the Supreme Court said, “no”. The court ruled that by entering the social media platform and engaging in the generation and sharing of content, Atty. Guevarra in effect relinquished a significant measure of privacy. According to the court, before a user can have any expectation of privacy in his or her social networking activity, it is necessary that the user manifests such intention through the use of the available privacy tools that regulate accessibility to a user’s content. Thus, err on the side of caution, in any case, and do take time to adjust your privacy settings. Yes, privacy settings and policies may be flimsy, when pressed against the realities of social media, but when you find yourself before the court, you will want to rely on all defenses, flimsy or otherwise.
Even if these posts were restricted or limited only to certain “friends”, the Supreme Court recognized, however, that even this “restriction” does not guarantee absolute protection from other users because of the ability of one “friend” to share the content or tag another “friend” in that content. Before you know it, your “private” post has become viral for everyone’s consumption. Essentially, these sharing and tagging features negated Atty. Guevarra’s claim of a violation of his right to privacy, and he was suspended from law practice for one year.
As they say, think before you post, like, share or, in the case of Atty. Guevarra, overshare!