invocation of his or her right to informational privacy.65 The bases of the instant complaint are the Facebook posts maligning and insulting complainant, which posts respondent insists were set to private view. However, the latter has failed to offer evidence that he utilized any of the privacy tools or features of Facebook available to him to protect his posts, or that he restricted its privacy to a select few. Therefore, without any positive evidence to corroborate his statement that the subject posts, as well as the comments thereto, were visible only to him and his circle of friends, respondent's statement is, at best, self-serving, thus deserving scant consideration.66 Moreover, even if the Court were to accept respondent's allegation that his posts were limited to or viewable by his "Friends" only, there is no assurance that the same - or other digital content that he uploads or publishes on his Facebook profile - will be safeguarded as within the confines of privacy, in light of the following: ch an Rob lesvirt u alLawlib rary (1) Facebook "allows the world to be more open and connected by giving its users the tools to interact and share in any conceivable way"; (2) A good number of Facebook users "befriend" other users who are total strangers; (3) The sheer number of "Friends" one user has, usually by the hundreds; and (4) A user's Facebook friend can "share" the former's post, or "tag" others who are not Facebook friends with the former, despite its being visible only to his or her own Facebook friends. 67 ch an rob leslaw Thus, restricting the privacy of one's Facebook posts to "Friends" does not guarantee absolute protection from the prying eyes of another user who does not belong to one's circle of friends. The user's own Facebook friend can share said content or tag his or her own Facebook friend thereto, regardless of whether the user tagged by the latter is Facebook friends or not with the former. Also, when the post is shared or when a person is tagged, the respective Facebook friends of the person who shared the post or who was tagged can view the post, the privacy setting of which was set at "Friends." 68 Under the circumstances, therefore, respondent's claim of violation of right to privacy is negated. Neither can the Court accept the argument that the subject remarks were written in the exercise of his freedom of speech and expression. Time and again, it has been held that the freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute.69 While the freedom of expression and the right of speech and of the press are among the most zealously protected rights in the Constitution, every person exercising them, as the Civil Code stresses, is obliged to act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.70 As such, the constitutional right of freedom of expression may not be availed of to broadcast lies or half-truths, insult others, destroy their name or reputation or bring them into disrepute.71 A punctilious scrutiny of the Facebook remarks complained of disclosed that they were ostensibly made with malice tending to insult and tarnish the reputation of complainant and BMGI. Calling complainant a "quack doctor," "Reyna ng Kaplastikan," "Reyna ng Payola," and "Reyna ng Kapalpakan," and insinuating that she has been bribing people to destroy respondent smacks of bad faith and reveals an intention to besmirch the name and reputation of complainant, as well as BMGI. Respondent also ascribed criminal negligence upon complainant and BMGI by posting that complainant disfigured ("binaboy") his client Norcio, labeling BMGI a "Frankenstein Factory," and calling out a boycott of BMGI's