Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Sps. Hing vs Choachuy et. al.

, GR 179736, June 26, 2013

FACTS
Choachuy constructed an auto-repair shop building (Aldo Goodyear Servitec) adjacent to
the property owned by the Spouses Hing.

Aldo filed a case against petitioners for Injuction and Damages, Aldo claimed that
petitioners were constructing a fence without a permit and that the said construction
would destroy the wall of its building which is adjacent to petitioners property

Court denied application because they failed to substantiate the allegations

In order to get evidence, respondents illegally set-up and installed on the building of Aldo
a video surveillance camera facing petitioners property

Aldo also took photos of the on-going construction through their employees. The Spouses
Hing claimed that the acts of respondent violated the petitioners right to privacy founded
on Article 26 (1), which enjoins persons from prying into the private lives of others

In its defense, Aldo claims that the property owned by the Hings is used for business
purposes, thus excluded from the coverage of the protection.

The Hings filed an application for a TRO against Aldo to remove the revolving
surveillance camera, which was granted by the RTC but revoked by the CA.

ISSUE
W/N there is a violation of the petitioners right to privacy

HELD
Petition is meritorious.
A business office is entitled to the same privacy when the public is excluded therefrom and only
such individuals as are allowed to enter may come in
Thus, an individuals right to privacy udner Article 26(1) of the Civil Code would 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.
Reasonable expectation of privacy test is used to determine whether there is a violation of the
right to privacy.
1. by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy
2. the expectation is on that society recognizes as reasonable

Sps. Hing vs Choachuy et. al., GR 179736, June 26, 2013

In this day, video surveillance cameras are installed everywhere for the protection and safety of
everyone. But this should not cover places where there is reasonable expectation of privacy,
unless the consent of the individual, whose right to privacy will be affected, was obtained. Similar
to crime under wire tapping law.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen