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.