A Muntinlupa court has issued a gag order prohibiting TV host and actor Vic Sotto from publicly disclosing or discussing the content of his legal filings in his ongoing legal battle with film director Darryl Yap.
This comes as Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch 205 Presiding Judge Liezel Aquiatan on Monday granted Yap’s motion for the issuance of a gag order.
The order prohibits Sotto and “any person acting for and on behalf of the petitioner” from publicly disclosing or discussing the contents of his verified return to the court in the habeas data case, as well as any matters learned from the proceedings.
It also ordered both parties to observe strict confidentiality in compliance with the sub judice rule, ensuring that case proceedings and related matters remain undisclosed to the public until resolved.
The gag order stemmed from a habeas data petition filed by Sotto against Yap on 7 January and in the petition, Sotto sought to have the court order the removal of the teaser video and promotional materials for Yap’s upcoming film, “The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma,” which mentions Sotto’s name.
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.
Following Sotto’s habeas data petition, the Muntinlupa court on 9 January ordered Yap to submit a verified return within five days and set a summary hearing for 15 January.
In response, Yap, through his lawyer Raymond Fortun, filed an urgent motion for the issuance of a gag order.
In a separate development, Yap filed a motion to cancel the 15 January hearing and consolidate the habeas data case with a separate cyber libel complaint filed by Sotto against him on 9 January.
Citing the Supreme Court Rule on Writ of Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC), Fortun argued that when a criminal action (the cyber libel complaint) is filed subsequent to a habeas data petition, the cases must be consolidated.