FACTS: Petitioner-spouses Bill and Victoria Hing filed with the RTC of Mandaue City a Complaint for Injunction and Damages with TRO, against respondents Alexander Choachuy, Sr. and Allan Choachuy.
Petitioners alleged that they are the registered owners of a parcel of land, whereas respondents are the owners of Aldo Development & Resources, Inc. (Aldo) located at Lots 1901 and 1900-C, adjacent to the property of petitioners. Respondents constructed an auto-repair shop building (Aldo Goodyear Servitec) on Lot 1900-C.
Respondents Aldo filed a case against petitioners for Injunction and Damages with Writ of Preliminary Injunction/TRO claiming 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. When Aldo’s application for preliminary injunction was denied by the court for failure to substantiate its allegations, respondents, to get evidence to support its case, illegally set-up and installed on the building of Aldo Goodyear Servitec two video surveillance cameras facing petitioners’ property. Respondents, through their employees and without the consent of petitioners, also took pictures of petitioners’ on-going construction.
Petitioners, claiming violation of their right to privacy, prayed that respondents be ordered to remove the video surveillance cameras and be enjoined from conducting illegal surveillance. Respondents, however, claimed that they did not install the video surveillance cameras, nor did they order their employees to take pictures of petitioners’ construction. They clarified that they are not the owners of Aldo but are mere stockholders.
The RTC granted the application for a TRO and directed respondents Alexander Choachuy, Sr. and Allan Choachuy to immediately remove the revolving camera and to transfer and operate it elsewhere at the back where petitioners’ property can no longer be viewed within a distance of about 2-3 meters from the left corner of Aldo Servitec, facing the road.
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. 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.
ISSUE: Whether the privacy of another’s residence as incorporated in Article 26(1) of the Civil Code, which enjoins persons from prying into the private lives of others includes business offices.
RULING: Yes. 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. The right to privacy, which is the right to be let alone, is enshrined in our Constitution and in our laws. It is “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.”
Thus, an individual’s 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 another’s 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.
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.” 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.
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.
In this case, the operation by respondents of a revolving camera, even if it were mounted on their building, violated the right of privacy of petitioners, who are the owners of the adjacent lot. The camera does not only focus on respondents’ property or the roof of the factory at the back (Aldo Development and Resources, Inc.) but it actually spans through a good portion of the land of petitioners. Based on the ocular inspection, the Court understands why petitioner Hing was so unyielding in asserting that the revolving camera was set up deliberately to monitor the on[-]going construction in his property. The monitor showed only a portion of the roof of the factory of Aldo. If the purpose of respondents in setting up a camera at the back is to secure the building and factory premises, then the camera should revolve only towards their properties at the back. Respondents’ camera cannot be made to extend the view to petitioners’ lot. To allow the respondents to do that over the objection of the petitioners would violate the right of petitioners as property owners. “The owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such a manner as to injure the rights of a third person.”
Thus, the issuance of a preliminary injunction was justified. We need not belabor that the issuance of a preliminary injunction is discretionary on the part of the court taking cognizance of the case and should not be interfered with, unless there is grave abuse of discretion committed by the court.Here, there is no indication of any grave abuse of discretion.
