Spouses Hing v. Choachuy, Sr.

 Spouses Hing v. Choachuy, Sr., 

G.R. No. 179736, 

June 26, 2013

DOCTRINE: Art. 26 (1) of the New Civil Code specifically mentions “prying into the

privacy of another’s residence.” This does not mean, however, that only the

resident is entitled to privacy, because the law also covers “similar acts”. 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.

FACTS: Petitioner and respondent owned parcel of lands adjacent to each other.

Respondent owned Aldo, Inc. which constructed an auto-repair shop in the lot they

owned. Petitioner constructed a fence and respondent alleged that it was without proper

permit and that the said construction caused damage to the former's property. Petitioner

claims that respondent installed surveillance cameras in order to gather evidence against

them and that an employee of the shop took photos of the construction site. Petitioner

filed a complaint for a writ of preliminary injunction and damages for respondents violation

of the former's right to privacy under the Art. 26(1) of the NCC. Respondent counterargued

that the provision of the New Civil Code cannot be applied as the property in question is

not a residence. The trial court granted the petition but was reversed by the CA, hence

this petition.

ISSUES: Whether the petitioner's right to privacy was violated even though the property

in question is not a residence.

HELD: Yes. The Court ruled that the CA erred in reversing the decision. The court held

that the right to privacy is violated when the reasonable expectancy of privacy is violated.

The test is 1) whether the individual exhibited an expectation of privacy and 2) that

expectation is one that society recognized as reasonable. Although surveillance cameras

are installed everywhere, it should not cover places where there is reasonable expectation

of privacy unless consented. In the case at bar, the court found that the area

being monitored by the respondent only showed the roof of their property and more of the

petitioner's property. Hence there was a violation of the right to privacy under the

constitution and under the Civil Code.

Although Art. 26 (1) provides that a party is entitled to an action for relief when another is

"prying into the privacy of another's residence", the court held that a business office is

entitled to the same privacy when the public is excluded therefrom and only such

individuals are allowed to enter may come in. The CA erred in limiting the application of

Art. 26 to only residential places and therefore includes the property of the parties.