LEGAL METHOD: Construction and Interpretation of Words, Phrases and Sentences

Case Name Ramirez v. CA

GR No. | Date G.R. No. 93833 | September 28, 1995 Ponente Kapunan, J.

Topic Latin Maxims – Ubi lex non distinguit nec noc distinguere debemos

Doctrine [In relation to Sec. 1, R.A. 4200] The law makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to
be penalized by the statute ought to be a party other than or different from those involved in the
private communication… Where the law makes no distinctions, one does not distinguish

Laws Sec. 1, R.A. 4200: It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to
any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device
or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by
using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie
or tape recorder, or however otherwise described.

Summary In a civil case filed by petitioner Ramirez against respondent Garcia, petitioner used as evidence
a recorded communication between the parties through a tape-recorder. As a result, respondent
filed a criminal case against the petitioner for violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Law. In response,
petitioner strongly alleges that she should not be held liable for violation of the said law since the
prohibition only applies to parties not involved in the conversation.

After a series of motions in the lower courts, the Supreme Court finally ruled that the recording
done by petitioner falls within the prohibition of Sec. 1, R.A. 4200, since it does not distinguish
the parties to be held liable for unauthorized recording of the private communication.

The court also ruled that: (1) Private communication is the same as private conversation, and (2)
the unauthorized recording thru the use of a tape-recorder is explicitly prohibited by the said law.

Facts of the Case

Statement of Facts:
• Petitioner Socorro Ramirez filed a civil case for damages against respondent Ester S. Garcia for insulting
and humiliating her in a hostile and furious mood.
o This is supported by a transcript of the civil case, based on a tape recording of the conversation
between the parties, showing that respondent (aliased ESG) called her “bobo,” and “walang utak.”
She also said that petitioner owed her employment to respondent. It was also recorded that she
used curses throughout their conversation.
• Respondent thereafter filed a criminal case against the petitioner for violation of R.A. 4200 (now known as
the Anti-Wiretapping Act).
o In the complaint, respondent alleged that the secret taping of the confrontation is illegal, since the
record was unauthorized by respondent Garcia.
• In response, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash, contending that the facts charged do not constitute the
offense.

Decision of the Lower Courts

• RTC-Pasay – granted the Motion to Quash. It agreed with the petitioner, and further held that R.A. 4200
refers to the taping of a communication by a person other than a participant.
• Supreme Court – referred the case to the CA upon receipt of a petition for review on certiorari resulting from
the decision of the RTC.
 • Court of Appeals – declared the RTC’s order null and void. It also denied petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• R.A. 4200 does not apply to the taping of a private conversation by one of the parties to the conversation.
o It refers to the unauthorized taping of a private conversation by a party other than those involved.
• The substance or content of the conversation must be alleged in the Information, otherwise, the facts charged
would not constitute a violation of RA 4200.
• R.A. 4200 penalizes the taping of a private communication, not a private conversation. The secret taping of
her conversation with respondent was not illegal

Ratio Decidendi

Statute in Dispute:
“Sec. 1, R.A. 4200: It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly
overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a
dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described.”

Issue 1: Does the prohibition in R.A. 4200 refer only to unauthorized taping by persons other than those involved in
the recorded conversation?
No.

Application in the case at bar:

The court ruled that Sec. 1 of R.A. 4200 clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by
all the parties to any private communication to secretly record such communication by means of a tape recorder. The
law makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a party other than
or different from those involved in the private communication.

It further held that the statute’s intent to penalize all persons unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by
the use of the qualifier, “any.” Moreover, the Senate Congressional Records state that our lawmakers indeed
contemplated to make illegal, unauthorized tape recording of private conversations or communications taken either
by the parties themselves or by third persons. Taken together, the provision seeks to penalize even those privies to
the private communications.

Conclusion:
Legislative intent is determined principally from the language of a statute. Where the language of a statute is clear and
unambiguous, the law is applied according to its express terms. Interpretation would be resorted to only where a literal
interpretation would either be impossible, absurd, or would lead to an injustice.

Corollary to this rule, one does not distinguish where the law makes no distinctions.

Issue 2: Does the phrase private communication include private conversations in the said provision of R.A. 4200?
Yes.

Application in the case at bar:

The court ruled the word private conversation is contemplated in Sec. 1 of R.A. 4200. The definitions of the word
used and that in the provision are broad enough to include verbal, nonverbal, or expressive communications of
meanings or thought which are likely to include the emotionally-charged exchange between the petitioner and private
respondent.

Moreover, the terms communication and conversation were found to be interchangeably used by the legislators in
Senator Tañada’s Explanatory Note to the bill.
Note: On other interpretations, See Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, where it declared wiretapping through a
telephone extension device acceptable, thus excusing the accused on that case on the ground of construing penal
statutes in favor of the accused. This is not the applicable in this case, however, since the instrument used is a tape
recorder, which is explicitly mentioned in the law.

Ruling

Wherefore, because the law, as applied to the case at bench is clear and unambiguous and leaves us with no
discretion, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The decision appealed from is AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner.

So Ordered.

Separate Opinions

-none-