Case Digest (G.R. No. 179736)
Facts:
On August 23, 2005, Spouses Bill and Victoria Hing filed a Complaint for Injunction and Damages with prayer for issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order before the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City (RTC), Civil Case No. MAN-5223, Branch 28, against Alexander Choachuy, Sr. and Allan Choachuy (respondents). The petitioners alleged they owned Lot 1900-B covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 42817 in Barangay Basak, Mandaue City, Cebu, while respondents, as stockholders of Aldo Development & Resources, Inc. (Aldo), occupied adjacent Lots 1901 and 1900-C, upon which they erected an auto-repair facility. In April 2005, Aldo unsuccessfully sought injunctive relief against the Hings in Civil Case No. MAN-5125 for constructing a fence without permit. Thereafter, petitioners claimed respondents clandestinely installed two video surveillance cameras on the Aldo building on June 13, 2005, pointing directly at petitioners’ property, and theCase Digest (G.R. No. 179736)
Facts:
- Factual Antecedents
- On August 23, 2005, spouses Bill and Victoria Hing filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City Civil Case No. MAN-5223 for Injunction and Damages, praying for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction/temporary restraining order (TRO) against Alexander Choachuy, Sr. and Allan Choachuy.
- Petitioners alleged they owned Lot 1900-B (TCT No. 42817) in Barangay Basak, Mandaue City; respondents were stockholders of Aldo Development & Resources, Inc., owner of adjacent Lots 1901 and 1900-C where an auto-repair shop (Aldo Goodyear Servitec) was constructed.
- In April 2005, Aldo filed Civil Case No. MAN-5125 against petitioners for constructing a fence without permit; the RTC denied Aldo’s application for preliminary injunction.
- Petitioners claimed that on June 13, 2005, respondents illegally installed two video surveillance cameras on the Aldo building facing petitioners’ lot and, through employees, photographed petitioners’ ongoing construction without consent, thereby violating petitioners’ right to privacy.
- Petitioners sought removal of the cameras and an injunction against further surveillance.
- Procedural History
- On October 18, 2005, RTC Branch 28 granted petitioners’ application for TRO/preliminary injunction, set bond at ₱50,000, and directed respondents to remove or relocate the cameras.
- Respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied on February 6, 2006.
- Respondents filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA), applying for a TRO/preliminary injunction.
- On July 10, 2007, the CA granted certiorari, finding grave abuse of discretion by the RTC, and annulled the October 18, 2005 and February 6, 2006 orders; a September 11, 2007 resolution affirmed that decision.
Issues:
- Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion in annulling and setting aside the RTC orders granting a preliminary injunction.
- Whether respondents’ installation and operation of video surveillance cameras violated petitioners’ constitutional and civil right to privacy.
- Whether respondents Alexander Choachuy, Sr. and Allan Choachuy are proper parties to this suit or merely shielding behind the corporate personality of Aldo Development & Resources, Inc.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)