Short answer. Yes. Article 230 of the Revised Penal Code punishes a public officer who reveals the secrets of a private individual that became known to him by reason of his office. The penalty is arresto mayor and a fine, and the offence is complete on the disclosure itself.
What the law says
Any public officer to whom the secrets of any private individual shall become known by reason of his office who shall reveal such secrets
Revised Penal Code, Article 230 — Revealing Secrets Of Private Individual. Read the full provision →
The three things the article requires
Read closely, Article 230 has three moving parts. First, the person who talked must be a public officer — a private employee who leaks your data is answerable under other laws, not this one. Second, what he revealed must be the secrets of a private individual, meaning something not already public. Third, and most important, the information must have become known to him by reason of his office. That is the link that turns gossip into a crime: the officer learned it because of the position he holds, and then disclosed it anyway. Information he happened to learn socially, outside his functions, falls outside the article.
The penalty and the RA 10951 amounts
The penalty is arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding two hundred thousand pesos. That peso figure is the amount set by Republic Act No. 10951 (2017), which revised fines and property values throughout the Revised Penal Code. Copies of the Code printed before 2017 — including many still circulating online and in reviewers — carry the original 1930 figures, which were vastly smaller. If a source quotes you a different amount for this article, check which version of the Code it is reproducing. The penalty is criminal and personal to the officer; it does not by itself compensate you for what the disclosure cost.
The other routes a leak can travel
A criminal complaint is rarely the only track. The same disclosure will usually also be an administrative offence within the officer's own agency, and administrative proceedings often move faster than a criminal case and can reach the officer's position and benefits. Separately, Philippine data privacy legislation governs how government and private bodies handle personal information and gives the person concerned rights over its processing, with its own complaint machinery. Which route fits depends on what was disclosed and to whom. Where the leaked material was also defamatory, or was spread through social media, still other provisions come into play, including the cybercrime law.
Proving it, and what it will not cover
The practical difficulty is almost never the law but the proof — showing that this particular officer disclosed this particular information, and that he held it only because of his office. Save the message, post or document that carried the leak, note who received it and when, and identify who else had lawful access to the same record, since a narrow pool of custodians is the strongest circumstantial evidence you will have. Note too that disclosure required or authorised by law is not what this article targets. Take advice on the specific facts; outcomes turn on the evidence and cannot be promised in advance.