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
Second of a Two-Part Series
In the case of Spouses Hing vs. Choachuy, Sr., et al., supra, the Supreme Court directed the respondents to remove their CCTV since even if it was mounted on their building, still it invaded the private space of the petitioners as it was beamed to the latter’s backyard:
“In this day and age, video surveillance cameras are installed practically everywhere for the protection and safety of everyone. The installation of these cameras, however, should not cover places where there is reasonable expectation of privacy, unless the consent of the individual, whose right to privacy would be affected, was obtained. Nor should these cameras be used to pry into the privacy of another’s residence or business office as it would be no different from eavesdropping, which is a crime under Republic Act No. 4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping Law.
In this case, the RTC, in granting the application for Preliminary Injunction, ruled that:
After careful consideration, there is basis to grant the application for a temporary restraining order. The operation by [respondents] of a revolving camera, even if it were mounted on their building, violated the right of privacy of [petitioners], who are the owners of the adjacent lot. The camera does not only focus on [respondents’] property or the roof of the factory at the back (Aldo Development and Resources, Inc.) but it actually spans through a good portion of [the] land of [petitioners].
Based on the ocular inspection, the Court understands why [petitioner] Hing was so unyielding in asserting that the revolving camera was set up deliberately to monitor the on[-]going construction in his property. The monitor showed only a portion of the roof of the factory of [Aldo]. If the purpose of [respondents] in setting up a camera at the back is to secure the building and factory premises, then the camera should revolve only towards their properties at the back. [Respondents’] camera cannot be made to extend the view to [petitioners’] lot. To allow the [respondents] to do that over the objection of the [petitioners] would violate the right of [petitioners] as property owners. ‘The owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such a manner as to injure the rights of a third person.’
The RTC, thus, considered that petitioners have a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ in their property, whether they use it as a business office or as a residence and that the installation of video surveillance cameras directly facing petitioners’ property or covering a significant portion thereof, without their consent, is a clear violation of their right to privacy. As we see then, the issuance of a preliminary injunction was justified. We need not belabor that the issuance of a preliminary injunction is discretionary on the part of the court taking cognizance of the case and should not be interfered with, unless there is grave abuse of discretion committed by the court. Here, there is no indication of any grave abuse of discretion. Hence, the CA erred in finding that petitioners are not entitled to an injunctive writ.”
In Spouses Hing vs. Choachuy, Sr., et al., supra, the Supreme Court already imposed a protection on spheres or areas which we think can be covered by CCTV surveillance. The Supreme Court held that even if it is not inside the residence or house, but the owner is expecting a degree of privacy like backyard or front lawn, then it is covered by the constitutional guarantee to privacy. The Supreme Court even held that it can be a basis for the filing of a case and prosecution for violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Law. This ruling is vital as there are areas, including residential subdivisions, where CCTVs are being installed by the State or homeowners’ association. For example, a CCTV in a streetlamp post may invade the privacy of a homeowner if the CCTV can zoom in upon their front lawn or backyard. However, we cannot just do away with CCTV as it also protects State interest to maintain peace and order and prevent criminality. There must be regulatory measures to address this lacuna of the law.