This document discusses a Supreme Court case in the Philippines regarding the installation of CCTV cameras. The case involved two neighboring families, the Choachuys and the Hings, who owned adjoining properties. The Choachuys installed CCTV cameras facing the Hings' property during a dispute over fence construction. The Hings argued this was an invasion of their privacy. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the CCTVs must be removed, as they violated the Hings' reasonable expectation of privacy on their business property without consent. The court established a test for determining reasonable expectation of privacy based on an individual's conduct exhibiting privacy and whether society would also consider the expectation reasonable.
This document discusses a Supreme Court case in the Philippines regarding the installation of CCTV cameras. The case involved two neighboring families, the Choachuys and the Hings, who owned adjoining properties. The Choachuys installed CCTV cameras facing the Hings' property during a dispute over fence construction. The Hings argued this was an invasion of their privacy. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the CCTVs must be removed, as they violated the Hings' reasonable expectation of privacy on their business property without consent. The court established a test for determining reasonable expectation of privacy based on an individual's conduct exhibiting privacy and whether society would also consider the expectation reasonable.
This document discusses a Supreme Court case in the Philippines regarding the installation of CCTV cameras. The case involved two neighboring families, the Choachuys and the Hings, who owned adjoining properties. The Choachuys installed CCTV cameras facing the Hings' property during a dispute over fence construction. The Hings argued this was an invasion of their privacy. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the CCTVs must be removed, as they violated the Hings' reasonable expectation of privacy on their business property without consent. The court established a test for determining reasonable expectation of privacy based on an individual's conduct exhibiting privacy and whether society would also consider the expectation reasonable.
The issue of camera installation continues to plague property owners
and security dealers because there is so little precedent to rely upon.
House Bill no. 6672, or An Act Requiring Business Establishment All Over The Philippines To Install Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Cameras In Their Place Of Business As Ameans To Deter Crime, And For Other Purposes, is yet to be enacted. The said bill requires notice of surveillance as pronounced in Section 4 of the said bill to wit; SEC 4. Notice of Surveillance The fact that surveillance cameras have been installed in an establishment shall be made known to the general public through a written notice displayed in the entrance of the establishment. However, as the same is yet to be enacted, it is still without any binding legal effect. There are, however, some principals of law which can be applied. One is that property owners do owe their tenants and others lawfully on the property some degree of reasonable protection. The level of duty has many variables. The Hotel has a duty to provide reasonable security. However, it must let people know that they are in an area where CCTV surveillance is being carried out. The most effective way of doing this is by using prominently placed signs at the entrance to the CCTV zone and reinforcing this with further signs inside the area. So pervasive has this technology been in our daily life that the manner of its use was discussed and passed upon by the Supreme Court in the case of Spouses Bill and Victoria Hing vs Alexander Choachuy Sr. and Allan Choachuy, G.R. No. 179736, dated June 26, 2013. The case involves two families that owned adjoining properties in Mandaue City, Cebu. The Choachuys built an auto repair shop in their
premises. Later, the Hings began to construct a fence around their
property which was being used as a business office. The Choachuys went to court to demand that their neighbor be ordered to desist from constructing the fence because it allegedly did not have a valid permit and that it would destroy the wall of their shop that was adjacent to the fence. The court denied the petition for failure to substantiate the damages claimed. Smarting from this defeat, the Choachuys installed in their shop two video surveillance cameras facing their neighbors property to record the construction of the fence. The Hings resented the installation of the cameras and, invoking invasion of their right to privacy, asked the court to order the removal of the CCTVs and illegal surveillance. The court ruled in their favor and ordered the Choachuys to immediately remove the revolving camera that they installed at the left side of their building overlooking the side of (petitioners) lot and to transfer and operate it elsewhere at the back The losing parties appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals and got a favorable ruling. Invasion The appellate court based its action on Art. 26 of the Civil Code which states that every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief: (l) Prying into the privacy of another residence.
Since the property subject of the controversy is not used as a
residence, the court said no violation of privacy could be imputed on the Choachuys. Unfazed, the Hings went to the Supreme Court to seek the reversal of the latter ruling. They claimed that the Civil Code provision which prohibited people from prying into the private lives of others also included business offices. In support of this stand, they cited the comments of Civil Law expert former Sen. Arturo Tolentino who said the provision does not mean, however, that only the residence is entitled to privacy, because the law also applies to 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. The tribunal agreed with Tolentinos comments on how a persons right to privacy should be construed and understood. It stated that the prohibition on prying into the privacy of anothers residence also covers places, locations or situations which an individual considers private, or in places where he has the right to exclude the public or deny them access. Reasonableness To ensure the proper determination of that right to privacy, the tribunal reiterated its earlier pronouncements on the reasonable expectation of privacy test. The test consists of two questions: (1) whether, by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy; and (2) this expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable.
The reasonableness of such expectation is influenced by customs,
community norms and other practices. Thus, its determination must be done on a case-by-case basis depending on the factual circumstances surrounding the case. Applying the test to the situation at hand, the tribunal said that 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 a reasonable expectation of privacy, unless the consent of the individual whose right to privacy would be affected, was obtained. Nor should those cameras be used to pry into the privacy of anothers 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. Bottom line, the CCTVs the Choachuys installed in their property that faced directly the Hings property or covered a significant portion of it, without the latters consent, is a clear violation of their right to privacy and should therefore be removed.