Hing v.

Choachuy set-up and installed on the building of Aldo Goodyear Servitec two
June 26, 2013 | Del Castillo J. | Disrespect for person video surveillance cameras facing petitioners’ property;
5. Respondents, through their employees and without the consent of
Petitioner: SPOUSES BILL AND VICTORIA HING petitioners, also took pictures of petitioners’ on-going construction;
Respondents: ALEXANDER CHOACHUY, SR. and ALLAN CHOACHUY and that the acts of respondents violate petitioners’ right to privacy.
6. Thus, petitioners prayed that respondents be ordered to remove the
Hings are owners of a parcel of land in Cebu. The respondents are the video surveillance cameras and enjoined from conducting illegal
owners of Aldo Development & Resources, Inc. (Aldo) adjacent to the surveillance.
property of petitioner. Respondents constructed an auto-repair shop building 7. In their Answer with Counterclaim, respondents claimed that they did
(Aldo Goodyear Servitec) that in April 2005. Aldo filed a case against not install the video surveillance cameras, nor did they order their
petitioners for Injunction and Damages with Writ of Preliminary Injunction/ employees to take pictures of petitioners’ construction. They also
TRO, that in that case, Aldo claimed that the Hings were constructing a clarified that they are not the owners of Aldo but are mere stockholders.
fence without a valid permit and that the said construction would destroy the 8. RTC granted the application
wall of its building, which is adjacent to petitioners’ property. To collect 9. CA reversed the ruling of the RTC.
evidence, the Choachuys illegally set-up and installed on the building of 10. Hence this petition.
Aldo Goodyear Servitec two video surveillance cameras facing Hing’s
property Respondents, through their employees and without the consent Issue:
of petitioners, also took pictures of petitioners’ on-going construction; WHETHER OR NOT there was a violation of the Hings’ right to privacy?
and that the acts of respondents violate petitioners’ right to privacy. The YES.
issue is whether or not the right to privacy of the petitioners was violated?
YES. Ruling:
1. The right to privacy is the right to be let alone.
Facts: 2. The right to privacy is enshrined in our Constitution and in our laws. It
1. Hing alleged that they are the registered owners of a parcel of land in is defined as "the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of one’s
Cebu. The respondents are the owners of Aldo Development & person or from intrusion into one’s private activities in such a way as to
Resources, Inc. (Aldo) adjacent to the property of petitioners cause humiliation to a person’s ordinary sensibilities.” It is the right of
2. Respondents constructed an auto-repair shop building (Aldo Goodyear an individual "to be free from unwarranted publicity, or to live without
Servitec) that in April 2005. unwarranted interference by the public in matters in which the public is
3. Aldo filed a case against petitioners for Injunction and Damages with not necessarily concerned.” Simply put, the right to privacy is "the right
Writ of Preliminary Injunction/TRO, that in that case, Aldo claimed that to be let alone.” 
petitioners were constructing a fence without a valid permit and that the 3. The Bill of Rights guarantees the people’s right to privacy and protects
said construction would destroy the wall of its building, which is them against the State’s abuse of power. In this regard, the State
adjacent to petitioners’ property; recognizes the right of the people to be secure in their houses. No one,
4. The court, in that case denied Aldo’s application for preliminary not even the State, except "in case of overriding social need and then
injunction for failure to substantiate its allegations; that, in order to get
evidence to support the said case, respondents on June 13, 2005 illegally
 only under the stringent procedural safeguards," can disturb them in the 10. The "reasonable expectation of privacy" test is used to determine
privacy of their homes. whether there is a violation of the right to privacy.
4. The right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code covers 11. In ascertaining whether there is a violation of the right to privacy,
business offices where the public are excluded therefrom and only courts use the "reasonable expectation of privacy" test. This test
certain individuals are allowed to enter. determines whether a person has a reasonable expectation of
5. Article 26(1) of the Civil Code, on the other hand, protects an privacy and whether the expectation has been violated
individual’s right to privacy and provides a legal remedy against abuses 12. In Ople v. Torres, we enunciated that "the reasonableness of a person’s
that may be committed against him by other individuals. It states: expectation of privacy depends on a two-part test: (1) whether, by his
6. Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy; and (2)
peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and this expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable." Customs,
similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall community norms, and practices may, therefore, limit or extend an
produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:(1) individual’s "reasonable expectation of privacy.”
Prying into the privacy of another’s residence; 13. Hence, the reasonableness of a person’s expectation of privacy must be
7. This provision recognizes that a man’s house is his castle, where his determined on a case-to-case basis since it depends on the factual
right to privacy cannot be denied or even restricted by others. It includes circumstances surrounding the case.
"any act of intrusion into, peeping or peering inquisitively into the 14. In this day and age, video surveillance cameras are installed
residence of another without the consent of the latter.” practically everywhere for the protection and safety of everyone.
8. The phrase "prying into the privacy of another’s residence," however, The installation of these cameras, however, should not cover places
does not mean that only the residence is entitled to privacy. As where there is reasonable expectation of privacy, unless the consent
elucidated by Civil law expert Arturo M. Tolentino: of the individual, whose right to privacy would be affected, was
Our Code specifically mentions "prying into the privacy of another’s obtained. Nor should these cameras be used to pry into the privacy of
residence." This does not mean, however, that only the residence is another’s residence or business office as it would be no different from
entitled to privacy, because the law covers also "similar acts." A eavesdropping, which is a crime under Republic Act No. 4200 or the
business office is entitled to the same privacy when the public is Anti-Wiretapping Law.
excluded therefrom and only such individuals as are allowed to enter 15. The RTC considered that petitioners have a "reasonable expectation of
may come in. x x x(Emphasis supplied) privacy" in their property, whether they use it as a business office or as a
9. Thus, an individual’s right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil residence and that the installation of video surveillance cameras directly
Code should not be confined to his house or residence as it may extend facing petitioners’ property or covering a significant portion thereof,
to places where he has the right to exclude the public or deny them without their consent, is a clear violation of their right to privacy.
access. The phrase "prying into the privacy of another’s residence," 16. As we see then, the issuance of a preliminary injunction was justified.
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.