Sei sulla pagina 1di 7

G.R. No.

175822

October 23, 2013

searched her wallet to check how much money she had, followed by another
argument. Respondent, thereafter, went home.10

CALIFORNIA CLOTHING INC. and MICHELLE S. YBAEZ, Petitioners,


vs.
SHIRLEY G. QUIONES, Respondent.

On the same day, the Guess employees allegedly gave a letter to the
Director of Cebu Pacific Air narrating the incident, but the latter refused to
receive it as it did not concern the office and the same took place while
respondent was off duty.11 Another letter was allegedly prepared and was
supposed to be sent to the Cebu Pacific Office in Robinsons, but the latter
again refused to receive it.12 Respondent also claimed that the Human
Resource Department (HRD) of Robinsons was furnished said letter and the
latter in fact conducted an investigation for purposes of canceling
respondents Robinsons credit card. Respondent further claimed that she
was not given a copy of said damaging letter.13 With the above experience,
respondent claimed to have suffered physical anxiety, sleepless nights,
mental anguish, fright, serious apprehension, besmirched reputation, moral
shock and social humiliation.14 She thus filed the Complaint for
Damages15 before the RTC against petitioners California Clothing, Inc.
(California Clothing), Excelsis Villagonzalo (Villagonzalo), Imelda Hawayon
(Hawayon) and Ybaez. She demanded the payment of moral, nominal, and
exemplary damages, plus attorneys fees and litigation expenses. 16

DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the ; Rules of
Court are the Court of Appeals Decision1 dated August 3, 2006 and
Resolution2 dated November 14, 2006 in CA-G.R. CV No. 80309. The
assailed decision reversed and set aside the June 20, 2003 Decision 3 of the
Regional Trial Court of Cebu City (RTC), Branch 58, in Civil Case No. CEB26984; while the assailed resolution denied the motion for reconsideration
filed by petitioner Michelle Ybaez (Ybaez).
The facts of the case, as culled from the records, are as follows:
On July 25, 2001, respondent Shirley G. Quiones, a Reservation Ticketing
Agent of Cebu Pacific Air in Lapu Lapu City, went inside the Guess USA
Boutique at the second floor of Robinsons Department Store (Robinsons) in
Cebu City. She fitted four items: two jeans, a blouse and a shorts, then
decided to purchase the black jeans worth P2,098.00.4 Respondent allegedly
paid to the cashier evidenced by a receipt5 issued by the store.6

In their Answer,17 petitioners and the other defendants admitted the issuance
of the receipt of payment. They claimed, however, that instead of the cashier
(Hawayon) issuing the official receipt, it was the invoicer (Villagonzalo) who
did it manually. They explained that there was miscommunication between
the employees at that time because prior to the issuance of the receipt,
Villagonzalo asked Hawayon " Ok na ?," and the latter replied " Ok na ,"
which the former believed to mean that the item has already been
paid.18 Realizing the mistake, Villagonzalo rushed outside to look for
respondent and when he saw the latter, he invited her to go back to the shop
to make clarifications as to whether or not payment was indeed made.
Instead, however, of going back to the shop, respondent suggested that they
meet at the Cebu Pacific Office. Villagonzalo, Hawayon and Ybaez thus
went to the agreed venue where they talked to respondent. 19 They pointed
out that it appeared in their conversation that respondent could not recall
whom she gave the payment.20 They emphasized that they were gentle and
polite in talking to respondent and it was the latter who was arrogant in
answering their questions.21As counterclaim, petitioners and the other

While she was walking through the skywalk connecting Robinsons and
Mercury Drug Store (Mercury) where she was heading next, a Guess
employee approached and informed her that she failed to pay the item she
got. She, however, insisted that she paid and showed the employee the
receipt issued in her favor.7 She then suggested that they talk about it at the
Cebu Pacific Office located at the basement of the mall. She first went to
Mercury then met the Guess employees as agreed upon. 8
When she arrived at the Cebu Pacific Office, the Guess employees allegedly
subjected her to humiliation in front of the clients of Cebu Pacific and
repeatedly demanded payment for the black jeans.9 They supposedly even

defendants sought the payment of moral and exemplary damages, plus


attorneys fees and litigation expenses.22

findings of the RTC, the CA opined that the letter addressed to Cebu Pacifics
director was sent to respondents employer not merely to ask for assistance
for the collection of the disputed payment but to subject her to ridicule,
humiliation and similar injury such that she would be pressured to
pay.26 Considering that Guess already started its investigation on the
incident, there was a taint of bad faith and malice when it dragged
respondents employer who was not privy to the transaction. This is
especially true in this case since the purported letter contained not only a
narrative of the incident but accusations as to the alleged acts of respondent
in trying to evade payment.27The appellate court thus held that petitioners are
guilty of abuse of right entitling respondent to collect moral damages and
attorneys fees. Petitioner California Clothing Inc. was made liable for its
failure to exercise extraordinary diligence in the hiring and selection of its
employees; while Ybaezs liability stemmed from her act of signing the
demand letter sent to respondents employer. In view of Hawayon and
Villagonzalos good faith, however, they were exonerated from liability.28

On June 20, 2003, the RTC rendered a Decision dismissing both the
complaint and counterclaim of the parties. From the evidence presented, the
trial court concluded that the petitioners and the other defendants believed in
good faith that respondent failed to make payment. Considering that no
motive to fabricate a lie could be attributed to the Guess employees, the
court held that when they demanded payment from respondent, they merely
exercised a right under the honest belief that no payment was made. The
RTC likewise did not find it damaging for respondent when the confrontation
took place in front of Cebu Pacific clients, because it was respondent herself
who put herself in that situation by choosing the venue for discussion. As to
the letter sent to Cebu Pacific Air, the trial court also did not take it against
the Guess employees, because they merely asked for assistance and not to
embarrass or humiliate respondent. In other words, the RTC found no
evidence to prove bad faith on the part of the Guess employees to warrant
the award of damages.23

Ybaez moved for the reconsideration29 of the aforesaid decision, but the
same was denied in the assailed November 14, 2006 CA Resolution.

On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

Petitioners now come before the Court in this petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court based on the following grounds:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The decision of the


Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 58, in Civil Case No. CEB-26984
(for: Damages) is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Defendants Michelle
Ybaez and California Clothing, Inc. are hereby ordered to pay plaintiffappellant Shirley G. Quiones jointly and solidarily moral damages in the
amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) and attorneys fees in the
amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00).

I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE
LETTER SENT TO THE CEBU PACIFIC OFFICE WAS MADE TO SUBJECT
HEREIN RESPONDENT TO RIDICULE, HUMILIATION AND SIMILAR
INJURY.

SO ORDERED.24

II.

While agreeing with the trial court that the Guess employees were in good
faith when they confronted respondent inside the Cebu Pacific Office about
the alleged non-payment, the CA, however, found preponderance of
evidence showing that they acted in bad faith in sending the demand letter to
respondents employer. It found respondents possession of both the official
receipt and the subject black jeans as evidence of payment. 25 Contrary to the

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AWARDING MORAL


DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS FEES.30
The petition is without merit.

Respondents complaint against petitioners stemmed from the principle of


abuse of rights provided for in the Civil Code on the chapter of human
relations. Respondent cried foul when petitioners allegedly embarrassed her
when they insisted that she did not pay for the black jeans she purchased
from their shop despite the evidence of payment which is the official receipt
issued by the shop. The issuance of the receipt notwithstanding, petitioners
had the right to verify from respondent whether she indeed made payment if
they had reason to believe that she did not. However, the exercise of such
right is not without limitations. Any abuse in the exercise of such right and in
the performance of duty causing damage or injury to another is actionable
under the Civil Code. The Courts pronouncement in Carpio v. Valmonte 31 is
noteworthy:

Under the abuse of rights principle found in Article 19 of the Civil Code, a
person must, in the exercise of legal right or duty, act in good faith. He would
be liable if he instead acted in bad faith, with intent to prejudice
another.34 Good faith refers to the state of mind which is manifested by the
acts of the individual concerned. It consists of the intention to abstain from
taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another.35Malice or
bad faith, on the other hand, implies a conscious and intentional design to do
a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity.36
Initially, there was nothing wrong with petitioners asking respondent whether
she paid or not. The Guess employees were able to talk to respondent at the
Cebu Pacific Office. The confrontation started well, but it eventually turned
sour when voices were raised by both parties. As aptly held by both the RTC
and the CA, such was the natural consequence of two parties with conflicting
views insisting on their respective beliefs. Considering, however, that
respondent was in possession of the item purchased from the shop, together
with the official receipt of payment issued by petitioners, the latter cannot
insist that no such payment was made on the basis of a mere speculation.
Their claim should have been proven by substantial evidence in the proper
forum.

In the sphere of our law on human relations, the victim of a wrongful act or
omission, whether done willfully or negligently, is not left without any remedy
or recourse to obtain relief for the damage or injury he sustained.
Incorporated into our civil law are not only principles of equity but also
universal moral precepts which are designed to indicate certain norms that
spring from the fountain of good conscience and which are meant to serve as
guides for human conduct. First of these fundamental precepts is the
principle commonly known as "abuse of rights" under Article 19 of the Civil
Code. It provides that " Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in
the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and
observe honesty and good faith."x x x32The elements of abuse of rights are
as follows: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith;
(3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.33

It is evident from the circumstances of the case that petitioners went


overboard and tried to force respondent to pay the amount they were
demanding. In the guise of asking for assistance, petitioners even sent a
demand letter to respondents employer not only informing it of the incident
but obviously imputing bad acts on the part of
respondent.1wphi1 Petitioners claimed that after receiving the receipt of
payment and the item purchased, respondent "was noted to hurriedly left
(sic) the store." They also accused respondent that she was not completely
being honest when she was asked about the circumstances of payment,
thus:

In this case, petitioners claimed that there was a miscommunication between


the cashier and the invoicer leading to the erroneous issuance of the receipt
to respondent. When they realized the mistake, they made a cash count and
discovered that the amount which is equivalent to the price of the black jeans
was missing. They, thus, concluded that it was respondent who failed to
make such payment. It was, therefore, within their right to verify from
respondent whether she indeed paid or not and collect from her if she did
not. However, the question now is whether such right was exercised in good
faith or they went overboard giving respondent a cause of action against
them.

x x x After receiving the OR and the item, Ms. Gutierrez was noted to
hurriedly left (sic) the store. x x x
When I asked her about to whom she gave the money, she gave out a blank
expression and told me, "I cant remember." Then I asked her how much
money she gave, she answered, "P2,100; 2 pcs 1,000 and 1 pc 100 bill."

Then I told her that that would (sic) impossible since we have no such
denomination in our cash fund at that moment. Finally, I asked her if how
much change and if she received change from the cashier, she then
answered, "I dont remember." After asking these simple questions, I am very
certain that she is not completely being honest about this. In fact, we invited
her to come to our boutique to clear these matters but she vehemently
refused saying that shes in a hurry and very busy.37

Article 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a
manner that is contrary to morals or good customs, or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage.
In view of the foregoing, respondent is entitled to an award of moral damages
and attorney s fees. Moral damages may be awarded whenever the
defendant s wrongful act or omission is the proximate cause of the plaintiffs
physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar
injury in the cases specified or analogous to those provided in Article 2219 of
the Civil Code.41 Moral damages are not a bonanza. They are given to ease
the defendant s grief and suffering. They should, thus, reasonably
approximate the extent of hurt caused and the gravity of the wrong
done.42 They are awarded not to enrich the complainant but to enable the
latter to obtain means, diversions, or amusements that will serve to alleviate
the moral suffering he has undergone.43 We find that the amount
of P50,000.00 as moral damages awarded by the CA is reasonable under the
circumstances. Considering that respondent was compelled to litigate to
protect her interest, attorney s fees in the amount of ofP20,000.00 is likewise
just and proper.

Clearly, these statements are outrightly accusatory. Petitioners accused


respondent that not only did she fail to pay for the jeans she purchased but
that she deliberately took the same without paying for it and later hurriedly
left the shop to evade payment. These accusations were made despite the
issuance of the receipt of payment and the release of the item purchased.
There was, likewise, no showing that respondent had the intention to evade
payment. Contrary to petitioners claim, respondent was not in a rush in
leaving the shop or the mall. This is evidenced by the fact that the Guess
employees did not have a hard time looking for her when they realized the
supposed non-payment.
It can be inferred from the foregoing that in sending the demand letter to
respondents employer, petitioners intended not only to ask for assistance in
collecting the disputed amount but to tarnish respondents reputation in the
eyes of her employer. To malign respondent without substantial evidence and
despite the latters possession of enough evidence in her favor, is clearly
impermissible. A person should not use his right unjustly or contrary to
honesty and good faith, otherwise, he opens himself to liability.38

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.


The Court of Appeals Decision dated August 3, 2006 and Resolution dated
November 14, 2006 in CA-G.R. CV No. 80309, are AFFIRMED.

The exercise of a right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it
was established and must not be excessive or unduly harsh. 39 In this case,
petitioners obviously abused their rights.

Joyce Ardiente, P e t i t i o n e r vs. Spouses Javier and Ma. Theresa


Pastorfide, Cagayan deOro Water District and Gaspar Gonzalez, Jr.,
Re s p o n d e n t s
Facts:
Petitioner Ardiente and Spouses Pastorfide entered into a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA)wherein the latter undertakes to pay the amount of Php
70,000.00 as consideration of a unitheld by the former at Emily Homes
Balulang, Cagayan De Oro City. It was also stipulated in theMOA that electric
and water bills will now be transferred on the account of Pastorfide.
However,the conflict aroused when petitioner, without informing respondents,
requested that the waterline of the latter be cut off by Cagayan De Oro Water
District (COWD). COWD on its part,without due notice, acceded to petitioner

Complementing the principle of abuse of rights are the provisions of Articles


20 and 2 of the Civil Code which read:40
Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes
damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

s request. When Ma. Theresa learned of suchtransaction, she paid the water
bills at the instant and requested that their water line be re-connected.
However, despite such payment, Manager Gonzales failed to fulfil his
obligation.Complaint for damages were filed before the RTC by respondents
against Ardiente and COWD.The trial court ruled in favour of the spouses
Pastorfide. On appeal, the CA affirmed said ruling.

One evening in October 1994, an exclusive party was being held at the Nikko
Hotel Manila Garden. The party was being held for a prominent Japanese
national. The person in charge at the party was Ruby Lim who was also the
executive secretary of the hotel. Later during the party, she noticed Robert
Reyes (popularly known as Amay Bisaya). Reyes was not on the list of
exclusive guests. Lim first tried to find out who invited Reyes to the party.
When she ascertained that the host celebrant did not invite Reyes, Lim
approached Reyes and told the latter, in a discreet voice, to finish his food
and leave the party. Reyes however made a scene and began shouting at
Lim. Later, a policeman was called to escort Reyes out of the party.

Issue:
Whether, despite the stipulation in the MOA between Petitioner Ardiente
andRespondent Spouses Pastorfide that the latter will undertake to have the
water account to theirnames and despite failure to do so, Ardiente may still
be held liable for abuse of rights under Article 19 of the New Civil Code.

Reyes then sued Lim and Nikko Hotel Manila Garden for damages. In his
version, he said that he was invited by another party guest, Dr. Violeta Filart.
He said that while he was queuing to get his food, Lim approached him and
ordered him in a loud voice to leave the party immediately. He told Lim he
was invited by Dr. Filart however when he was calling for Dr. Filart the latter
ignored him. Later, he was escorted out of the party like a common criminal.

Held:
Yes. Ardiente may still be held liable.It is true that it is within petitioner's right
to ask and even require the Spouses Pastorfide tocause the transfer of the
former's account with COWD to the latter's name pursuant to
theirMemorandum of Agreement. However, the remedy to enforce such right
is not to cause thedisconnection of the respondent spouses' water supply.
The exercise of a right must be inaccordance with the purpose for which it
was established and must not be excessive or undulyharsh; there must be no
intention to harm another. Otherwise, liability for damages to the injuredparty
will attach. In the present case, intention to harm was evident on the part of
petitionerwhen she requested for the disconnection of respondent sp
ouses water supply without warning or informing the latter of such request.
Petitioner claims that her request for disconnection wasbased on the advise
of COWD personnel and that her intention was just to compel the
SpousesPastorfide to comply with their agreement that petitioner's account
with COWD be transferred inrespondent spouses' name. If such was
petitioner's only intention, then she should haveadvised respondent spouses
before or immediately after submitting her request fordisconnection, telling
them that her request was simply to force them to comply with theirobligation
under their Memorandum of Agreement. But she did not. What made matters
worse isthe fact that COWD undertook the disconnection also without prior
notice and even failed to reconnect the Spouses Pastorfides water supply despite
payment of their arrears. There was clearly an abuse of right on the part of petitioner,
COWD and Gonzalez. They are guilty of badfaith.The principle of abuse of
rights as enshrined in Article 19 of the Civil Code provides that everyperson
must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act
with justice,give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

The trial court ruled in favor of Lim and Nikko Hotel. However, the Court of
Appeals ruled in favor of Reyes as it ruled that Lim abused her right and that
Reyes deserved to be treated humanely and fairly. It is true that Lim had the
right to ask Reyes to leave the party but she should have done it respectfully.
ISSUE: Whether or not Lim acted with abuse of rights.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court found the version of Lim more credible. She
has been employed by the hotel for more than 20 years at that time. Her job
requires her to be polite at all times. It is very unlikely for her to make a
scene in the party she was managing. That would only make her look bad.
Reyes based his complaint on Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. Art. 19
which provides:
Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his
duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and
good faith.

NIKKO HOTEL vs. REYES

was not violated by Lim as it appears that even Reyes testified in court that
when Lim told him to leave, Lim did so very close to him so close that they
could almost kiss. This only proves that Lim intended that only Reyes shall
hear whatever is it that shes going to tell Reyes and exclude other guests
from hearing.

and Allan Choachuy.


Petitioners alleged that they are the registered owners of a parcel of land (Lot
1900-B) covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 42817 situated in
Barangay Basak, City of Mandaue, Cebu;that respondents are the owners of
Aldo Development & Resources, Inc. (Aldo) located at Lots 1901 and 1900C, adjacent to the property of petitioners;that respondents constructed an
auto-repair shop building (Aldo Goodyear Servitec) on Lot 1900-C; that in
April 2005, Aldo filed a case against petitioners for Injunction and Damages
with Writ of Preliminary Injunction/TRO, docketed as Civil Case No. MAN5125;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;that the court, in
that case, denied Aldos application for preliminary injunction for failure to
substantiate its allegations;that, in order to get evidence to support the said
case, respondents on June 13, 2005 illegally set-up and installed on the
building of Aldo Goodyear Servitec two video surveillance cameras facing
petitioners property;that respondents, through their employees and without
the consent of petitioners, also took pictures of petitioners on-going
construction;and that the acts of respondents violate petitioners right to
privacy.Thus, petitioners prayed that respondents be ordered to remove the
video surveillance cameras and enjoined from conducting illegal surveillance.

Article 21 on the other hand is commonly known as contra bonus mores:


Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter
for the damage.
This article is likewise not violated. Lim, as proven by evidence on record, did
not demean Reyes. They do not know each other personally. She has no
reason to treat him wrongfully especially so that Reyes himself is a prominent
person.
On the other hand, Reyes brought whatever damage he incurred upon
himself. Under the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria, by coming to the party
uninvited, Reyes opens himself to the risk of being turned away, and thus
being embarrassed. The injury he incurred is thus self-inflicted. Evidence
even shows that Dr. Filart herself denied inviting Reyes into the party and
that Reyes simply gate-crashed. Reyes did not even present any supporting
evidence to support any of his claims. Since he brought injury upon himself,
neither Lim nor Nikko Hotel can be held liable for damages.

In their Answer with Counterclaim,respondents claimed that they did not


install the video surveillance cameras,nor did they order their employees to
take pictures of petitioners construction.They also clarified that they are not
the owners of Aldo but are mere stockholders.
On October 18, 2005, the RTC issued an Ordergranting the application for a
TRO.
Respondents moved for a reconsiderationbut the RTC denied the same in its
Orderdated February 6, 2006.

SPOUSES BILL AND VICTORIA HING,Petitioners, v. ALEXANDER


CHOACHUY, SR. and ALLAN CHOACHUY, Respondents.

Aggrieved, respondents filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorariunder Rule


65 of the Rules of Court with application for a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction.

DEL CASTILLO, J.:


FACTS:

On July 10, 2007, the CA issued its Decisiongranting the Petition for
Certiorari. The CA ruled that the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was issued
with grave abuse of discretion because petitioners failed to show a clear and
unmistakable right to an injunctive writ.The CA explained that the right to
privacy of residence under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code was not violated
since the property subject of the controversy is not used as a residence. The

On August 23, 2005, petitioner-spouses Bill and Victoria Hing filed with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City a Complaintfor Injunction and
Damages with prayer for issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), docketed as Civil Case MAN5223 and raffled to Branch 28, against respondents Alexander Choachuy, Sr.

CA alsosaid that since respondents are not the owners of the building, they
could not have installed video surveillance cameras.They are mere
stockholders of Aldo, which has a separate juridical personality.Thus, they
are not the proper parties.

This provision recognizes that a mans 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
anothers residence," however, does not mean that only the residence is
entitled to privacy. As elucidated by Civil law expert Arturo M. Tolentino:

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not there is a violation of petitioners right to privacy?

Our Code specifically mentions "prying into the privacy of anothers


residence." This does not mean, however, that only the residence is entitled
to privacy, because the law covers also "similar acts." A business office is
entitled to the same privacy when the public is excluded therefrom and only
such individuals as are allowed to enter may come in.

2. Whether or not respondents are the proper parties to this suit?


HELD: Court of Appeals decision is reversed.
POLITICAL LAW: right to privacy

Thus, an individuals right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code
should not be confined to his house or residence as it may extend to places
where he has the right to exclude the public or deny them access. The
phrase "prying into the privacy of anothers residence," therefore, covers
places, locations, or even situations which an individual considers as private.
And as long as his right is recognized by society, other individuals may not
infringe on his right to privacy. The CA, therefore, erred in limiting the
application of Article 26(1) of the Civil Code only to residences

The right to privacy is enshrined in our Constitutionand in our laws. It is


defined as "the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of ones person
or from intrusion into ones private activities in such a way as to cause
humiliation to a persons 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."
The Bill of Rights guarantees the peoples right to privacy and protects them
against the States abuse of power. In this regard, the State recognizes the
right of the people to be secure in their houses. No one, not even the State,
except "in case of overriding social need and then only under the stringent
procedural safeguards," can disturb them in the privacy of their homes.
CIVIL LAW: 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, on the other hand, protects an individuals 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 anothers residence;

Potrebbero piacerti anche