Director Darryl Yap asked a Muntinlupa court to cancel a summary hearing regarding the petition of writ of habeas data filed by TV host and actor Vic Sotto against him and consolidate the case with the complaint of cyber libel.
On Jan. 13, Yap, through his lawyer Raymond Fortun, filed a motion for immediate consolidation with motion to cancel the Jan. 15 hearing set by the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 205.
Sotto filed a P35 million cyber libel complaint against Yap with the Muntinlupa Prosecutor’s Office on Jan. 9 after his name was mentioned in the teaser video of the director’s upcoming film “The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma,” which is set for release in February.
The official poster for the film “The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma” (Darryl Yap's Facebook account)
Director Darryl Yap (right) with his lawyer Raymond Fortun (Darryl Yap's Facebook account)
Actor Vic Sotto at the Muntinlupa Hall of Justice on Jan. 9 after filing a cyber libel complaint against director Darryl Yap (Jonathan Hicap)
On Jan. 7, Sotto filed a petition for writ of habeas data with the Muntinlupa RTC Branch 205.
Through the writ of habeas data, Sotto is asking the Muntinlupa court to remove the teaser video and promotional materials for the film that depicted or mentioned his “personal information or sensitive personal information.”
According to the Supreme Court, “The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.”
The Muntinlupa RTC Branch 205, in an order dated Jan. 9, accepted the petition for writ of habeas data filed by Sotto, ordered Yap to submit a verified return of the writ within five days, and set the summary hearing on Jan. 15.
In the motion, Fortun cited the Rule on Writ of Habeas Data issued by the Supreme Court under A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC.
“With the commonality of allegations in the complaints involving the same parties, social media posts, and subject matter, Respondent moves for the immediate consolidation of the instant case with the subsequently filed criminal actions for cyberlibel with prayer for civil damages, as mandated by Sections 21 and 22 of A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC,” Fortun’s motion read.
It cited Sec. 21 on consolidation under the Supreme Court rule, which states that “when a criminal action is filed subsequent to the filing of a petition for the writ, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.”
Sotto’s cyber libel complaint was filed on Jan. 9 while his petition for writ of habeas data was filed on Jan. 7.
The motion said due to this, “this Honorable Court has no other recourse but to forward this case to the OCP [Office of the City Prosecutor] Muntinlupa for purposes of consolidation with the criminal actions for cyberlibel filed by Petitioner [Sotto].”
“The language of Section 21 of A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC are clear and unambiguous: this Petition shall be consolidated with the criminal actions filed by the Petitioner before OCP Muntinlupa. From the moment that such criminal actions were filed, there is no discretion left for this Honorable Court except to issue an order for the same,” it added.
It added that “the cancellation of the summary hearing scheduled on January 15, 2025 is proper, since there is nothing under A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC which grants it authority to conduct further proceedings once the criminal actions have been filed.”
Yap, through Fortun, is asking the court to issue an order directing Sotto “to disclose the relevant details of the Complaint-Affidavit [with Prayer for Civil Damages] by way of compliance with his Verification and Certification against Forum-Shopping notarized on 03 January 2025, necessary for the consolidation of the instant case.”
It is also asking the court to consolidate “the instant case with the pending criminal actions for Cyberlibel filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent, with the lowest docket number and to ipso facto cancel the summary hearing scheduled on 15 January 2025.”