You are on page 1of 1

SPOUSES HING VS.

CHOACHUY

FACTS:

Sometime in April 2005, Aldo Development & Resources, Inc. (owned by Choachuy’s) filed a
case for Injunction and Damages with Writ of Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining
Order against the Hing’s. The latter claimed that the Hing’s constructed a fence without a valid
permit and that it would destroy the walls of their building. The court denied the application for
lack of evidence. So in order to get evidences for the case, on June 2005, Choachuy illegally
set-up two video surveillance cameras facing the Hing’s property. Their employees even took
pictures of the said construction of the fence. The Hing’s then filed a case against the
Choachuy’s for violating their right to privacy. On October 2005, the RTC issued a order
granting the application of the Hing’s for TRO and directed the Choachuy’s to remove the two
video surveillance cameras they installed. The Choachuy’s appealed the case to the Court of
Appeals and the RTC’s decision was annulled and set aside. The Hing’s then raised the case to
the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the installation of two video surveillance cameras of Choachuy’s violated
the Hing’s right to privacy.

HELD:

Such act of the Choachuy’s violated the right of privacy of the Hing’s under Article 26(1)
prohibiting the “prying into the privacy of another’s residence.” Although it is a business office
and not a residence, the owner has the right to exclude the public or deny them access.

You might also like