Ramirez vs Court of Appeals

Facts:
 The petitioner in this case is Socorro Ramirez. She filed a civil case for damages in RTC of Quezon City.
 According to her during a confrontation in the office of Garcia, Garcia insulted and humiliated her, which
offended her dignity and personality.
 To support her claim, Ramirez produced a verbatim transcript of the confrontation via a recording she made
during the incident. She now seeks for damages and other expenses.
 However, because of the recording event, Garcia filed a criminal case against Ramirez (before the Regional
Trial Court of Pasay City) for violation of RA 4200 (The Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wiretapping and Other
Related Violations of Private Communication and Other Purposes) alleging that the said act of recording
secretly the confrontation was illegal.
 When she was arraigned. Ramirez filed a Motion to Quash the Information in lieu of a plea on the ground that
the facts do not constitute a violation of RA 4200.
 The trial court granted the motion to quash, agreeing with the petitioner that:
o The facts charged do not constitute a violation of RA 4200
o The violation punished by the said law refers to taping by a person not a participant in the
communication
 Because of the decision of the trial court, Garcia filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court,
and referred the case to the Court of Appeals.
 The Court of appeals declared the order of the Trial Court null and void holding that:
o The judge of the trial court acted in grave abuse of discretion in quashing the information
 The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.
 Hence her petition.

Issues:
 Whether or not RA 4200 applies to a recording of private conversation by one of the parties to a conversation
 Whether or not the substance must be alleged in the information and RA 4200 applies to a private conversation

Ruling:
 Legislative intent is determined from the language of the statute. If the language of the statute is clear and
unambiguous, the law is applied according to its express terms. Interpretation occurs only if literal
interpretation is absurd or will lead to an injustice.
 Section 1 of the RA 4200 clearly makes it illegal for any person not authorized by the parties to any private
communication, to secretly record such communication via recorder.
 The law makes no distinction whether the party to be penalized should be different from those involved in the
private communication.
 The unambiguity of the provision penalizes even that party to the private communication.
 Where the law makes no distinction, one should not distinguish.
 The court held that the nature of the conversation is immaterial to the violation of the statute. What RA 4200
penalizes is the act itself, of secretly recording (overhearing, intercepting) private communications.
 According to the court, communication connotes the act of sharing or imparting as, in a conversation, or the
process which meanings or thoughts are shared between individuals through a common system of symbols.
These definitions are broad enough to include the exchanges of both parties that occurred during the incident.