Constitutional Law: Right toPrivacy…September 21, 2014 by The Lawyer's the privacy of another’s residence.
another’s residence.” This does notmean, however, that only the
PostG.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013, SPOUSES BILL AND VICTORIA HING,
PETITIONERS, VS.ALEXANDER CHOACHUY, SR. AND ALLAN CHOACHUY,
RESPONDENTS.
“In this day and age, video surveillance cameras are installed practically everywhere
for theprotection and safety of everyone. The installation of these cameras, however,
should not coverplaces where there is reasonable expectation of privacy, unless the
consent of the individual, whoseright to privacy would be affected, was obtained”Bill
and Victoria, spouses, filed a Complaint for Injunction and Damages with prayer for
issuance ofa Writ of Preliminary Injunction against Alexander and Allan. According to
them, they own the lotadjacent to the lots owned by Aldo Development and
Resources, where Alex and Allan arestockholders. The corporation built an auto-
shop building on Lot 1900-C adjacent to the lot ownedby Bill and Victoria. In April,
2005, Aldo filed a case for injunction and damages against Bill andVictoria claiming
that they were constructing a fence without a valid permit and the
constructionwould destroy its building. The court denied the application by Aldo for
preliminary injunction forfailure to substantiate its allegations. To gather evidence
against the spouses, Aldo illegally set-up onthe building of Aldo two video
surveillance camera facing petitioners party and through theiremployees and
without the consent of spouses took pictures of their on-going construction; thus
itviolates their right to privacy. The spouses prayed that Alexander and Allan be
ordered to removetheir video-cameras and stopped from conducting illegal
surveillance.Answering, Alexander and Allan claimed that they did not install the
cameras, nor ordered theiremployees to take pictures of the spouse’s construction;
they also averred that they are merestockholders of Aldo;The Regional Trial Court
granted the prayer for temporary restraining order and directed Alexanderand Allan
to remove their video cameras and install them elsewhere where the spouse’s
property willno longer be viewed.Alexander and Allan filed a petition for certiorari
with the Court of Appeals, which granted theirpetition.Bill and Victoria therefore
elevated the case to the Supreme Court:“The right to privacy is enshrined in our
Constitution and in our laws. It is defined as “the right to befree from unwarranted
exploitation of one’s person or from intrusion into one’s private activities insuch 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 inmatters in which the public is not necessarily
concerned.” Simply put, the right to privacy is “theright to be let alone.
The Bill of Rights guarantees the people’s right to privacy and protects them against
the State’sabuse of power. In this regard, the State recognizes the right of the people
to be secure in theirhouses. No one, not even the State, except “in case of overriding
social need and then only under thestringent procedural safeguards,” can disturb
them in the privacy of their homes.”x x x“Our Code specifically mentions “prying into
residence is entitled to privacy, because the law covers also “similaracts.” A business
office is entitled to the same privacy when the public is excluded therefrom andonly
such individuals as are allowed to enter may come in. x x x[ (Emphasis supplied)Thus,
an individual’s right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code should not be
confined tohis house or residence as it may extend to places where he has the right
to exclude the public or denythem access. The phrase “prying into the privacy of
another’s residence,” therefore, covers places,locations, or even situations which an
individual considers as private. And as long as his right isrecognized 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.”x x xIn
ascertaining whether there is a violation of the right to privacy, courts use the
“reasonableexpectation of privacy” test. This test determines whether a person has
a reasonable expectation ofprivacy and whether the expectation has been violated.
In Ople v. Torres, we enunciated that “thereasonableness of a person’s expectation
of privacy depends on a two-part test: (1) whether, by hisconduct, the individual has
exhibited an expectation of privacy; and (2) this expectation is one thatsociety
recognizes as reasonable.” Customs, community norms, and practices may,
therefore, limitor extend an individual’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Hence,
the reasonableness of aperson’s expectation of privacy must be determined on a
case-to-case basis since it depends on thefactual circumstances surrounding the
case.In this day and age, video surveillance cameras are installed practically
everywhere for the protectionand safety of everyone. The installation of these
cameras, however, should not cover places wherethere is reasonable expectation of
privacy, unless the consent of the individual, whose right toprivacy would be
affected, was obtained. Nor should these cameras be used to pry into the privacyof
another’s residence or business office as it would be no different from
eavesdropping, which is acrime under Republic Act No. 4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping
Law.“The concept of liberty would be emasculated if it does not likewise compel
respect for [one’s]personality as a unique individual whose claim to privacy and
[non]-interference demands respect.