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.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 179736)

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

Petitioners filed a Complaint for Injunction and Damages with a prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) / writ of preliminary mandatory injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 28, Mandaue City (Civil Case No. MAN-5223). The RTC granted a TRO and issued a writ of preliminary injunction directing respondents to remove or reorient the surveillance camera. Respondents’ motion for reconsideration at the RTC was denied. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) arguing grave abuse of discretion; the CA annulled the RTC orders. Petitioners brought the case to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari).

Key Dates and Applicable Law

Decision reviewed by the Supreme Court: use the 1987 Philippine Constitution as the constitutional basis (Section 2, Article III, as quoted in the record). Relevant statutory and doctrinal authorities invoked in the record include Article 26(1) of the Civil Code (dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind; prying into privacy of residence), the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test as articulated in Ople v. Torres, and Rules of Court (Section 2, Rule 3 on parties-in-interest). The constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures (Section 2, Article III) is quoted and relied upon.

Factual Findings at Trial-Level

Petitioners alleged the cameras were installed on June 13, 2005 to gather evidence for a separate suit and that the cameras were pointed at and covered a significant portion of petitioners’ property. The RTC conducted an ocular inspection, observed that a revolving camera captured not only respondent’s premises but a substantial portion of petitioners’ lot, and found petitioners’ testimony and objections credible. The RTC concluded petitioners had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their property and that the installation and operation of the surveillance equipment, without consent, violated their right to privacy.

Court of Appeals’ Ruling and Rationale

The CA granted respondents’ certiorari petition, holding the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the injunctive writ. The CA reasoned that Article 26(1) protects the privacy of a residence and that petitioners’ property was not being used as a residence; therefore Article 26(1) did not apply. The CA also held respondents were not proper parties because they were not the registered owners of the building (Aldo, as a separate juridical person, installed the cameras), concluding that holding respondents liable would improperly pierce the corporate veil.

Issues Presented on Appeal

  1. Whether the CA erred in annulling the RTC’s orders and finding grave abuse of discretion.
  2. Whether petitioners’ right to privacy (constitutional and civil) was violated by the surveillance.
  3. Whether respondents were proper parties despite not being the registered owner of the building where the cameras were installed.
  4. Whether procedural defects in respondents’ pleadings were improperly overlooked by the CA.

Legal Standard on the Right to Privacy

The Supreme Court reiterates that the right to privacy is the right to be let alone and is protected both by the Constitution (right to be secure in persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures) and by Article 26(1) of the Civil Code (which proscribes prying into the privacy of another’s residence and analogous acts). The Court emphasizes that Article 26(1)’s reference to “residence” does not confine the protection to dwellings alone; business offices and other places where the public is excluded may likewise attract a reasonable expectation of privacy. The applicable test is the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy two-part inquiry from Ople v. Torres: (1) did the individual exhibit an expectation of privacy by his conduct, and (2) is that expectation one society recognizes as reasonable.

Application of the Privacy Standard to the Facts

Applying the two-part test, the RTC found and the Supreme Court accepted that petitioners manifested an expectation of privacy in their property and that the expectation was reasonable. The ocular inspection and testimony demonstrated that the revolving and stationary cameras installed on the Aldo building pointed to and covered a significant portion of petitioners’ lot; the cameras did not confine their view to respondent’s premises. The Court observed that while video surveillance may be legitimate for security, it must not intrude where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists absent consent. The Court concluded the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing preliminary injunctive relief because the factual findings supported a reasonable expectation of privacy and a resultant likelihood of success on the merits sufficient for injunctive relief.

Real Party in Interest and Corporate Separate Personality

The Court addressed whether respondents, who denied ownership of the building and claimed only to be stockholders of Aldo, were proper parties. Under Rule 3, Section 2, a real party-in-interest is the party

...continue reading

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.

About Privacy Terms