In its Report and Recommendation 47 dated August 13, 2013, the IBP-CBD recommended that respondent be suspended for a period of one (1) year from the practice of law, with a stem warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.48 It held respondent liable for violation of Rule 7.03,49 Rule 8.01,50 and Rule 19.0151 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for having posted the above-quoted remarks on his Facebook account, pointing out that respondent cannot invoke the "private" nature of his posts, considering that he had at least 2,000 "friends" who can read and react thereto. Moreover, the IBP-CBD maintained that the criminal cases he had filed against complainant on behalf of Norcio had been dismissed for insufficient evidence; therefore, he can no longer campaign against complainant whose alleged crimes against Norcio had not been established.52 In a Resolution53 dated September 27, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the August 13, 2013 Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD. Respondent moved for reconsideration,54 arguing that there was no specific act attributed to him that would warrant his suspension from the practice of law. He also averred that the libel cases filed against him by an employee of BMGI had already been dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction. 55 In a Resolution56 dated October 28, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors partially granted respondent's motion, reducing the penalty from one (1) year to six (6) months suspension. ch an rob lesvirt u allawlib rary The Issue Before the Court The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable based on the allegations of the verified complaint. ch an rob lesvirt u allawlib rary The Court's Ruling The Court has examined the records of this case and concurs with the IBP's findings, except as to the penalty imposed on respondent. At the outset, the Court notes that respondent never denied that he posted the purportedly vulgar and obscene remarks about complainant and BMGI on his Facebook account. In defense, however, he invokes his right to privacy, claiming that they were "private remarks" on his "private account" 57 that can only be viewed by his circle of friends. Thus, when complainant accessed the same, she violated his constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy. The defense is untenable. Facebook is currently the most popular social media site, having surpassed one (1) billion registered accounts and with 1.71 billion monthly active users.58 Social media are web-based platforms that enable online interaction and facilitate users to generate and share content. There are various classifications59 of social media platforms and one can be classified under the "social networking sites" such as Facebook.60 Facebook is a "voluntary social network to which members subscribe and submit information. x x x It has a worldwide forum enabling friends to share information such as thoughts, links, and photographs, with one another."61 Users register at this site, create a personal profile or an open book of who they are, add other users as friends, and exchange messages, including automatic notifications when they update their profile. A user can post a statement, a photo, or a video on Facebook, which can be made visible to anyone, depending on the user's privacy settings. 62 To address concerns about privacy, but without defeating its purpose, Facebook was armed with different privacy tools designed to regulate the accessibility of a user's profile, as well as information uploaded by the user. In H v. W,63 the South Gauteng High Court of Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa recognized this ability of the users to "customize their privacy settings," but with the cautionary advice that although Facebook, as stated in its policies, "makes every effort to protect a user's information, these privacy settings are however not foolproof." 64 Consequently, before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or her online social networking activity - in this case, Facebook - it is first necessary that said user manifests the intention to keep certain posts private, through the employment of measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility. This intention can materialize in cyberspace through the utilization of Facebook's privacy tools. In other words, utilization of these privacy tools is the manifestation, in the cyber world, of the user's