Title
Spouses Hing vs. Choachuy, Sr.
Case
G.R. No. 179736
Decision Date
Jun 26, 2013
Petitioners sued respondents for violating their privacy by installing surveillance cameras facing their property; SC ruled in favor, citing privacy rights and piercing the corporate veil.
A

Case 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)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.