1.) Isko owns a residential condominium unit in Manila Prime Towers Condominium(MPTC), which he later on sold to Bato. Apparently, Isko did not report such sale; did not pay the capital gains tax due; and did not declare the proceeds of sale as part of his income when he filed his tax returns. On a routine examination, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) happens to check on Isko's tax returns. Knowing that Isko had a unit in MPTC, BIR asked management of information about it and its ownership status, which MPT complied. BIR learned that Isko did not register his sale of his unit and pay the taxes due, hence, he was assessed with deficiency taxes. Isko now questions the act of MPTC in providing his information and data to the BIR. He claims that he was not inform by the MPTC and did not authorize the giving of such information. He said that MTC violated his rights under the Data Privacy Act. Is Isko correct? Why or why not. Support your answer with the provision/s of the law. 2.) Des P. Radais a third-year business student. In her desire to find her "Mr. Right", she accessed a Filipino dating site Kindling. To join Kindling, she was required to reveal her private information such as complete name, location, contact details, the school she went to, the companies or places she worked for, etc. These data will eventually be shared by Kindling users, users' friends or the dating website itself. For whatever reasons, Des P. Rada's personal data were publicly posted and, hence, made known to others who are not members of Kindling. As a result, Des P. Rada has not only been cyber-bullied by suitors that she disliked and rejected, but ridiculed by some of her classmates, and even stalked by ex-boyfriend Kanor. Des P. Rada blames Kindling of what had happened. Did Kindling violate her rights under the Data Privacy Act? Support your answer with the provision/s of the law.