by Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
SPOUSES HING VS. CHOACHUY, SR., ET Al., G.R. NO. 179736 (26 JUNE 2013):
LEGALITY OF INSTALLING AND OPERATING A CLOSED-CIRCUIT TELEVISION
First of a Two-Part Series
It is common for residential houses and commercial establishments to have Closed-circuit Television (“CCTV”). A CCTV is a system-device wherein there are several cameras in spots and locations within a residence or establishment and the owner or management can view the same in the control screen. Normally, CCTV is installed for security purposes, either: 1) as a prevention since bad elements will think twice of committing any crime; and 2) it can store data to record what transpired at a given time which may be used as evidence for investigation and/or prosecution.
In the case of Spouses Hing vs. Choachuy, Sr., G.R. No. 179736 (26 June 2013), the Supreme Court discussed the legality of installing and operating a CCTV vis-à-vis the right to privacy of citizens whose private spaces may be invaded or violated by the operation of the CCTV. The said case stemmed from a petition for Injunction with prayer for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) filed by spouses Bill and Victoria Hing against respondents Alexander Choachuy, Sr. and Allan Choachuy. In their petition, petitioners Spouses Hing alleged that they are registered owners of a parcel of land in Brgy. Basak, Mandaue City, Cebu and that respondents Choachuys are owners of Aldo Development & Resources, Inc. which operates Aldo Goodyear Servitec in the adjacent lots. Petitioners further alleged that Aldo filed a case against earlier claiming they were constructing a fence without valid permit and such fence would destroy the wall of its building. Petitioners claim that to get evidence in support of the said case, Aldo installed two video surveillance cameras facing petitioners’ property that respondents, through their employees and without consent of the petitioners, also took pictures of the petitioners’ on-going construction. Petitioners prayed for the removal of the video surveillance cameras arguing that the same violated their right to privacy.
In Spouses Hing vs. Choachuy, Sr., supra, the Supreme Court defined the right to privacy as follows:
“The right to privacy is enshrined in our Constitution and in our laws. It is defined as ‘the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of one’s person or from intrusion into one’s private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a person’s ordinary sensibilities.’ It is the right of an individual ‘to be free from unwarranted publicity, or to live without unwarranted interference by the public in matters in which the public is not necessarily concerned.’ Simply put, the right to privacy is ‘the right to be let alone.’
The Bill of Rights guarantees the people’s right to privacy and protects them against the State’s abuse of power. In this regard, the State recognizes the right of the people to be secure in their houses. No one, not even the State, except ‘in case of overriding social need and then only under the stringent procedural safeguards,’ can disturb them in the privacy of their homes.”
In Spouses Hing vs. Choachuy, Sr., supra, the Supreme Court went on to rule that one of the laws which guarantees this right to privacy is Article 26 (1) of the Civil Code ruling that it covers even business offices where the public are excluded therefrom, and only certain individuals can enter.
Article 26 (1) of the Civil Code provides:
“Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:
- Prying into the privacy of another’s residence;
x x x x x x x x x”
In Spouses Hing vs. Choachuy, Sr., supra, the Supreme Court held that the protection guaranteed under Article 26 (1) of the Civil Code extends not only to a man’s house but spaces wherein people is expecting a degree of privacy:
“This provision recognizes that a man’s house is his castle, where his right to privacy cannot be denied or even restricted by others. It includes ‘any act of intrusion into, peeping or peering inquisitively into the residence of another without the consent of the latter.’ The phrase “prying into the privacy of another’s residence,” however, does not mean that only the residence is entitled to privacy. As elucidated by Civil law expert Arturo M. Tolentino:
Our Code specifically mentions ‘prying into the privacy of another’s residence.’ This does not mean, however, that only the residence is entitled to privacy, because the law covers also ‘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. . . . (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, an individual’s right to privacy under Article 26 (1) of the Civil Code should 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. The phrase “prying into the privacy of another’s residence,” therefore, covers places, locations, or even situations which an individual considers as private. And as long as his right is recognized by society, other individuals may not infringe on his right to privacy. The CA, therefore, erred in limiting the application of Article 26 (1) of the Civil Code only to residences.”
From the foregoing, a person even within the confine of his residence or establishment does not have limitless right or unbridled discretion to install and operate a CCTV even if it invades spaces of other individuals where they expect a certain degree of privacy. (To be continued in the second and last part)