Sps Hing v.
Choachuy (TAN) respondents constructed an auto-repair shop building (Aldo Goodyear
June, 26, 2013 | Del Castillo, J. | Privacy of Communication and Corespondence
PETITIONER: SPOUSES BILL AND VICTORIA HING
RESPONDENTS: ALEXANDER CHOACHUY, SR. AND ALLAN
CHOACHUY
SUMMARY: Sometime in April 2005, Aldo Developers Inc owned by
Chocachuy’s filed a case against the Hing’s. The latter claimed that Hing’s made
a fence without a valid permit and that it would destroy the walls of their
building. Court denied application for lack o fevidence so eventually Choachuy
illegally set-up two video surveillance cameras facing Hing’s property. Their
employees even took pictures of said construction of the fence which led to the
Hing’s filling a case against right to privacy. The court then declared them to
remove the said surveillance cameras that were installed. Although it is a
business office and not a residence the owner still has the right to exclude the
public or deny them access.
DOCTRINE:
The right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code covers business
offices where the public are excluded therefrom and only certain individuals
are allowed to enter.
Article 26(1) of the Civil Code, protects an individual’s right to privacy
and provides a
legal remedy against abuses that may be committed against him by
other individuals. It states:
Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and
peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and
similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall
produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and
other relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of another’s residence;
FACTS:
1. Petitioners alleged that they are the registered owners of a parcel of land
(Lot 1900-B) situated in Barangay Basak, City of Mandaue, Cebu; that
respondents are the owners of Aldo Development & Resources, Inc. (Aldo)
located at Lots 1901 and 1900-C, adjacent to the property of petitioners that
Servitec) on Lot 1900-C;
2. Aldo filed a case against petitioners for Injunction and Damages with Writ
of Preliminary Injunction/TRO, that in that case, Aldo claimed that
petitioners were constructing a fence without a valid permit and that the
said construction would destroy the wall of its building, which is adjacent to
petitioners’ property. The court, in that case, denied Aldo’s application for
preliminary injunction for failure to substantiate its allegations.
3. In order to get evidence to support the said case, respondents illegally set-up
and installed on the building of Aldo Goodyear Servitec two video
surveillance cameras facing petitioners’ property. The respondents, through
their employees and without the consent of petitioners, also took pictures of
petitioners’ on-going construction.
4. The petitioners alleged that the acts of respondents violate their right to
privacy. Thus, petitioners prayed that respondents be ordered to remove the
video surveillance cameras and enjoined from conducting illegal
surveillance.
ISSUE/s: Whether there is a violation of petitioners’ right to privacy.- Yes
RULING: SC affirmed the lower courts decision. Pwede rin wherefore.
RATIO
1. The right to privacy is enshrined in our Constitution and in our laws. It is
defined as “the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of one’s
person or from intrusion into one’s private activities in such a way as to
cause humiliation to a person’s ordinary sensibilities.” It is the right of
an individual “to be free from unwarranted publicity, or to live without
unwarranted interference by the public in matters in which the public is not
necessarily concerned.”Simply put, the right to privacy is “the right to
be let alone.”
2. The right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code covers business
offices where the public are excluded therefrom and only certain
individuals are allowed to enter.
Article 26(1) of the Civil Code, protects an individual’s right to privacy and
provides a
legal remedy against abuses that may be committed against him by other
individuals. It states:
Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and
peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar
acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a
cause of action for damages, prevention and
other relief:
 (1) Prying into the privacy of another’s residence;
xxxx

3. This provision recognizes that a man’s house is his castle, where his right to
privacy cannot be denied or even restricted by others. It includes “any act of
intrusion into, peeping or peering inquisitively into the residence of another
without the consent of the latter.” The phrase “prying into the privacy of
another’s residence,” however, does not mean that only the residence is
entitled to privacy.
4. In ascertaining whether there is a violation of the right to privacy, courts use
the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test. This test determines whether
a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and whether the
expectation has been violated. In Ople v. Torres, we enunciated that “the
reasonableness of a person’s expectation of privacy depends on a two-part
test: (1) whether, by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an
expectation of privacy; and (2) this expectation is one that society
recognizes as reasonable.”
5. Customs, community norms, and practices may, therefore, limit or extend
an individual’s “reasonable expectation of privacy. “Hence, the
reasonableness of a person’s expectation of privacy must be determined on
a case-to-case basis since it depends on the factual circumstances
surrounding the case.
6. In this day and age, video surveillance cameras are installed practically
everywhere for the protection and safety of everyone. The installation of
these cameras, however, should not cover places where there is reasonable
expectation of privacy, unless the consent of the individual, whose right to
privacy would be affected, was obtained. Nor should these cameras be used
to pry into the privacy of another’s residence or business office as it would
be no different from eavesdropping, which is a crime under Republic Act
No. 4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping Law.
7. The RTC, thus, considered that petitioners have a “reasonable expectation
of privacy” in their property, whether they use it as a business office or as a
residence and that the installation of video surveillance cameras directly
facing petitioners’ property or covering a significant portion thereof,
without their consent, is a clear violation of their right to privacy.