Dura Legis Optimus Unus: 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.

Travel & Tours Advisers Incorporated v. Alberto Cruz, Sr., et. al.,

G.R. No. 199282,

March 14, 2016.

DOCTRINE:

In the present case, it has been established that the proximate cause of the death

of Alberto Cruz, Jr. is the negligence of petitioner's bus driver, with the contributory

negligence of respondent Edgar Hernandez, the driver and owner of the jeepney,

hence, the heirs of Alberto Cruz, Jr. shall recover damages of only 50% of the

award from petitioner and its driver. Necessarily, 50% shall be bourne by

respondent Edgar Hernandez.

FACTS:

Respondent Edgar Hernandez was driving an Isuzu Passenger Jitney (jeepney)

that he owns along Angeles-Magalang Road, Barangay San Francisco, Magalang,

Pampanga, on January 9, 1998, around 7:50 p.m. Meanwhile,. a Daewoo

passenger bus (RCJ Bus Lines) owned by petitioner Travel and Tours Advisers,

Inc. and driven by Edgar Calaycay travelled in the same direction as that of

respondent Edgar Hernandez vehicle. Thereafter, the bus bumped the rear portion

of the jeepney causing it to ram into an acacia tree which resulted in the death of

Alberto Cruz, Jr. and the serious physical injuries of Virginia Muñoz.

Thus, respondents Edgar Hernandez, Virginia Muñoz and Alberto Cruz, Sr., father

of the deceased Alberto Cruz, Jr., filed a complaint for damages, docketed as Civil

Case No. 9006 before the RTC claiming that the collision was due to the reckless,

negligent and imprudent manner by which Edgar Calaycay was driving the bus, in

complete disregard to existing traffic laws, rules and regulations, and praying that

judgment be rendered ordering Edgar Calaycay and petitioner Travel & Tours

Advisers, Inc. to pay them.

For its defense, the petitioner claimed that it exercised the diligence of a good

father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employee Edgar Calaycay

and further argued that it was Edgar Hernandez who was driving his passenger

jeepney in a reckless and imprudent manner by suddenly entering the lane of the

petitioner's bus without seeing to it that the road was clear for him to enter said

lane. In addition, petitioner alleged that at the time of the incident, Edgar

Hernandez violated his franchise by travelling along an unauthorized line/route and

that the jeepney was overloaded with passengers, and the deceased Alberto Cruz,

Jr. was clinging at the back thereof.

ISSUE:

Whether the contributory negligence of the jeepney driver will still make him

entitled to damages?

HELD:

Yes. But petitioner’s liability is mitigated.

At the time of the vehicular accident, the jeepney was in violation of its allowed

route as found by the RTC and the CA, hence, the owner and driver of the jeepney

likewise, are guilty of negligence as defined under Article 2179 of the Civil Code,

which reads as follows:When the plaintiffs negligence was the immediate and

proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence

was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the

defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts

shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.

The petitioner and its driver, therefore, are not solely liable for the damages caused

to the victims. The petitioner must thus be held liable only for the damages actually

caused by his negligence.21 It is, therefore, proper to mitigate the liability of the

petitioner and its driver. The determination of the mitigation of the defendant's

liability varies depending on the circumstances of each case.