Professional Documents
Culture Documents
161107
No.
192
xxx
xxx
HING, Petitioners,
and
ALLAN
DECISION
IT IS SO ORDERED.20
IT IS SO ORDERED.24
Aggrieved, respondents filed with the CA a Petition for
Certiorari25 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with application
for a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
Factual Antecedents
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On August 23, 2005, petitioner-spouses Bill and Victoria Hing
filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City a
Complaint5 for Injunction and Damages with prayer for
issuance
of
a
Writ
of
Preliminary
Mandatory
Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), docketed as
Civil Case MAN-5223 and raffled to Branch 28, against
respondents Alexander Choachuy, Sr. and Allan Choachuy.
Petitioners alleged that they are the registered owners of a
parcel of land (Lot 1900-B) covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. 42817 situated in Barangay Basak, City of
Mandaue, Cebu;6 that respondents are the owners of Aldo
Development & Resources, Inc. (Aldo) located at Lots 1901
and 1900-C, adjacent to the property of petitioners;7 that
respondents constructed an auto-repair shop building (Aldo
Goodyear Servitec) on Lot 1900-C; that in April 2005, Aldo filed
a case against petitioners for Injunction and Damages with Writ
of Preliminary Injunction/TRO, docketed as Civil Case No.
MAN-5125;8 that in that case, Aldo claimed that petitioners
were constructing a fence without a valid permit and that the
said construction would destroy the wall of its building, which is
adjacent to petitioners property;9 that the court, in that case,
denied Aldos application for preliminary injunction for failure to
substantiate its allegations;10 that, in order to get evidence to
support the said case, respondents on June 13, 2005 illegally
set-up and installed on the building of Aldo Goodyear Servitec
two video surveillance cameras facing petitioners
property;11 that respondents, through their employees and
without the consent of petitioners, also took pictures of
petitioners on-going construction;12 and that the acts of
respondents violate petitioners right to privacy.13 Thus,
Petitioners Arguments
Petitioners insist that they are entitled to the issuance of a Writ
of Preliminary Injunction because respondents installation of a
stationary camera directly facing petitioners property and a
revolving camera covering a significant portion of the same
property constitutes a violation of petitioners right to
privacy.34 Petitioners cite Article 26(1) of the Civil Code, which
enjoins persons from prying into the private lives of
others.35 Although the said provision pertains to the privacy of
anothers residence, petitioners opine that it includes business
offices, citing Professor Arturo M. Tolentino.36 Thus, even
assuming arguendo that petitioners property is used for
business, it is still covered by the said provision.37
As to whether respondents are the proper parties to implead in
this case, petitioners claim that respondents and Aldo are one
and the same, and that respondents only want to hide behind
Aldos corporate fiction.38 They point out that if respondents are
not the real owners of the building, where the video
surveillance cameras were installed, then they had no
business consenting to the ocular inspection conducted by the
court.39
Respondents Arguments
Respondents, on the other hand, echo the ruling of the CA that
petitioners cannot invoke their right to privacy since the
property involved is not used as a residence. 40 Respondents
maintain that they had nothing to do with the installation of the
video surveillance cameras as these were installed by Aldo,
the registered owner of the building, 41 as additional security for
The
"reasonable
privacy"
test
is
whether
there
is
a
to privacy.
A
real
party
defendant
is
one
who
has
a
correlative
legal
obligation
to
redress
a
wrong
done
to
the
plaintiff
by
reason
of
the
defendant's
act
or
omission
which
had
violated
the
legal
right
of
the
former.
expectation
of
used
to
determine
violation
of
the
right
PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS
CECILIA
ZULUETA, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and ALFREDO MARTIN, respondents.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals,
affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila
(Branch X) which ordered petitioner to return documents and
papers taken by her from private respondent's clinic without the
latter's knowledge and consent.
The facts are as follows:
Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private respondent
Alfredo Martin. On March 26, 1982, petitioner entered the clinic
of her husband, a doctor of medicine, and in the presence of
her mother, a driver and private respondent's secretary, forcibly
opened the drawers and cabinet in her husband's clinic and
took 157 documents consisting of private correspondence
between Dr. Martin and his alleged paramours, greetings
cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr. Martin's passport, and
photographs. The documents and papers were seized for use
in evidence in a case for legal separation and for
disqualification from the practice of medicine which petitioner
had filed against her husband.
Dr. Martin brought this action below for recovery of the
documents and papers and for damages against petitioner.
The case was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch X, which, after trial, rendered judgment for private
respondent, Dr. Alfredo Martin, declaring him "the
capital/exclusive owner of the properties described in
paragraph 3 of plaintiff's Complaint or those further described
in the Motion to Return and Suppress" and ordering Cecilia
Zulueta and any person acting in her behalf to a immediately
return the properties to Dr. Martin and to pay him P5,000.00,
as nominal damages; P5,000.00, as moral damages and
attorney's fees; and to pay the costs of the suit. The writ of
preliminary injunction earlier issued was made final and
petitioner Cecilia Zulueta and her attorneys and
representatives
were
enjoined
from
"using
or
submitting/admitting as evidence" the documents and papers
in question. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the Regional Trial Court. Hence this petition.
There is no question that the documents and papers in
question belong to private respondent, Dr. Alfredo Martin, and
that they were taken by his wife, the herein petitioner, without
his knowledge and consent. For that reason, the trial court
declared the documents and papers to be properties of private
respondent, ordered petitioner to return them to private
respondent and enjoined her from using them in evidence. In
appealing from the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming
the trial court's decision, petitioner's only ground is that in
Alfredo Martin v. Alfonso Felix, Jr.,1 this Court ruled that the
documents and papers (marked as Annexes A-1 to J-7 of
respondent's comment in that case) were admissible in
evidence and, therefore, their use by petitioner's attorney,
DEPARTMENT
OF
MANAGEMENT, Respondents.
BUDGET
and
x-----------------------------------x
G.R. No. 167930
Marital Status
Weight
Names of Parents
Height