Case Summary (G.R. No. 179736)
Petitioners
– Owners of Lot 1900-B (TCT No. 42817) used for private purposes.
– Seek removal of cameras and injunctive relief for violation of their right to privacy.
Respondents
– Alleged stockholders (not registered owners) of Aldo Development & Resources, Inc.
– Deny installing cameras or ordering photography of petitioners’ construction activities.
Key Dates
– August 23, 2005: Petitioners file Complaint for Injunction and Damages with application for TRO/Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction before RTC Branch 28, Mandaue City (Civil Case No. MAN-5223).
– October 18, 2005: RTC grants TRO and orders removal/relocation of cameras.
– February 6, 2006: RTC denies respondents’ motion for reconsideration; writ of preliminary injunction issued upon bond.
– July 10, 2007: Court of Appeals (CA) grants respondents’ petition for certiorari under Rule 65, annuls RTC orders.
– September 11, 2007: CA denies motion for reconsideration.
– June 26, 2013: Supreme Court decision reversing CA and reinstating RTC injunction orders.
Applicable Law
– 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 2: right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
– Civil Code Article 26(1): duty to respect privacy; actionable acts include prying into another’s residence.
– Rule 45 (Certiorari) and Rule 65 (Certiorari) of the Rules of Court.
– Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Law).
Factual Background
- Petitioners allege that in June 2005 respondents illegally installed two surveillance cameras on Aldo’s building, pointed directly at petitioners’ lot, and directed employees to photograph ongoing fence construction without consent.
- Respondents previously filed Civil Case No. MAN-5125 against petitioners, seeking injunction regarding petitioners’ fence; that request for preliminary injunction was denied for lack of evidence.
- Petitioners filed their own suit (MAN-5223) alleging violation of privacy and seeking mandatory removal of cameras.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
– The RTC granted a TRO and later a writ of preliminary injunction, finding that respondents’ rotation and positioning of cameras intruded upon petitioners’ private activities on their property.
– The court emphasized petitioners’ reasonable expectation of privacy and held that invasions by advanced surveillance equipment constituted actionable interference.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
– The CA granted respondents’ petition for certiorari, concluding that:
• Petitioners failed to establish a right to injunctive relief, as Article 26(1) applies only to residential privacy.
• Respondents, not being owners of the building, could not have installed the cameras; thus they were improper parties.
Issues on Review
- Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion in annulling the RTC’s injunction orders.
- Whether petitioners’ right to privacy was violated by the surveillance activities.
- Whether respondents are the real parties in interest and proper parties to the suit.
Petitioners’ Arguments
– Installation of stationary and revolving cameras facing their lot violated Article 26(1) of the Civil Code, which extends to private business offices where public access is excluded.
– Respondents and Aldo are one and the same; corporate fiction should not shield them from suit.
Respondents’ Arguments
– Article 26(1) protects only residential privacy, not adjacent business or undeveloped land.
– Cameras were installed by Aldo (the building owner) for security, and respondents as mere stockholders bear no liability.
Supreme Court’s Analysis: Right to Privacy
– The right to privacy is constitutionally protected and includes freedom from unwarranted intrusion into private activities—a “right to be let alone.”
– Civil Code Article 26(1)’s reference to “residence” is illustrative; privacy extends to any place where an individual excludes the public, including business premises.
– The “reasonable expectation of privacy” test requires (a) subjective expectation
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 179736)
Procedural History
- Petitioners filed a Complaint for Injunction and Damages with prayer for Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction/TRO before RTC-Mandaue City (Civil Case No. MAN-5223) on August 23, 2005.
- RTC Branch 28 granted petitioners’ application for TRO on October 18, 2005, directing removal of a revolving camera installed by respondents.
- RTC denied respondents’ motion for reconsideration on February 6, 2006, and reissued the writ of preliminary injunction.
- Respondents elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with application for TRO and/or preliminary injunction.
- CA, in its July 10, 2007 Decision and September 11, 2007 Resolution in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 01473, annulled and set aside the RTC orders, finding grave abuse of discretion and improper parties.
- Petitioners moved for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 179736).
Factual Antecedents
- Petitioners are registered owners of Lot 1900-B (TCT No. 42817) in Brgy. Basak, Mandaue City, Cebu.
- Respondents Alexander Choachuy, Sr. and Allan Choachuy are stockholders of Aldo Development & Resources, Inc., which owns Lots 1901 and 1900-C adjacent to petitioners’ property.
- Respondents constructed “Aldo Goodyear Servitec” on Lot 1900-C.
- In April 2005, Aldo sued petitioners in RTC Civil Case No. MAN-5125 for constructing a fence without permit; preliminary injunction was denied for lack of proof.
- On June 13, 2005, respondents allegedly installed two video surveillance cameras on Aldo’s building, facing petitioners’ lot, and took photographs of petitioners’ ongoing construction without consent.
- Petitioners claimed these acts violated their right to privacy and sought removal of cameras and injunctive relief.
Regional Trial Court Ruling
- RTC granted petitioners’ application for a TRO upon petitioners’ posting of a P50,000 bond.
- Dispositive order directed respondents to remove the revolving camera installed at the side of their building overlooking petitioners’ lot and relocate it at the back, beyond a 2–3 meter view of petitioners’ property.
- RTC denied respon