Hing vs. Choachuy

The right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code, which prohibits "prying into the privacy of another's residence," is not strictly confined to residential properties; it also protects areas like business offices where the public is excluded and where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Petitioners Spouses Hing and respondents Choachuy are owners of adjacent commercial lots in Mandaue City, Cebu. The respondents operate an auto-repair shop, Aldo Goodyear Servitec, on their property. A prior legal dispute existed between the parties, initiated by the respondents' company (Aldo) against the petitioners concerning the construction of a fence. Following this, the respondents installed two video surveillance cameras on their building, which were directed at the petitioners' property. Petitioners alleged that this was an illegal act of surveillance intended to gather evidence for the prior case and was a violation of their privacy, prompting them to file the present case for injunction and damages.

• Petitioners Spouses Bill and Victoria Hing are the registered owners of Lot 1900-B in Mandaue City, Cebu.
• Respondents Alexander and Allan Choachuy are stockholders of Aldo Development & Resources, Inc. (Aldo), which owns the adjacent Lots 1901 and 1900-C, where an auto-repair shop is located.
• In April 2005, Aldo filed a case against the petitioners, claiming that the fence they were building was illegal and would damage Aldo's building wall.
• On June 13, 2005, respondents installed two video surveillance cameras on the Aldo Goodyear Servitec building, with one stationary camera facing petitioners' property and another revolving camera covering a significant portion of it.
• Petitioners alleged that the cameras were installed without their consent to gather evidence for the prior case and that this violated their right to privacy.
• The RTC conducted an ocular inspection and confirmed that the revolving camera spanned a good portion of the petitioners' land and was not solely focused on the respondents' property for security purposes.
• Based on this finding, the RTC granted a writ of preliminary injunction ordering the respondents to remove the camera overlooking the petitioners' lot.

• The installation of surveillance cameras covering their property constitutes a violation of their right to privacy as guaranteed by Article 26(1) of the Civil Code.
• The right to privacy is not limited to one's residence but extends to business offices and other private spaces, as supported by the commentary of legal scholar Arturo M. Tolentino.
• Respondents are the proper parties to be sued because they are the ones who caused the installation of the cameras and are merely using the separate corporate personality of Aldo as a shield to evade liability.
• The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion, as the issuance of the preliminary injunction was justified by the clear violation of their rights.

• Petitioners cannot invoke their right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code because the provision specifically refers to a "residence," and the property in question is not used as such.
• They are not the proper parties to the suit because they are merely stockholders of Aldo Development & Resources, Inc., which is the actual owner of the building where the cameras were installed.
• They had nothing to do with the installation of the cameras, which were set up by Aldo for the additional security of its building.
• They were wrongfully impleaded, and suing them constitutes an unwarranted piercing of the corporate veil.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether respondents Alexander and Allan Choachuy, as stockholders of the corporation that owns the building, are the proper parties to be sued for the installation of the surveillance cameras.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the installation of video surveillance cameras overlooking an adjacent commercial property constitutes a violation of the owner's right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code.

• Procedural:
  • Yes, the respondents are the proper parties to the suit. The Supreme Court found that respondents were merely using the corporate fiction of Aldo, a family-owned corporation, as a shield. Their direct involvement in the dispute, their consent to the court's ocular inspection of the premises, and their arguments in their motion for reconsideration (claiming Aldo would suffer damages) showed that their personalities merged with that of the corporation for the purposes of this suit. A real party defendant is one who has a correlative legal obligation to redress a wrong done, and the facts indicated that respondents caused the violation.
• Substantive:
  • Yes, the installation of the cameras violated the petitioners' right to privacy. The Court ruled that the phrase "prying into the privacy of another's residence" in Article 26(1) of the Civil Code is not restrictive. Citing Arturo Tolentino, the Court held that the right to privacy extends to other places where an individual has a right to exclude the public, such as a business office. The "reasonable expectation of privacy" test applies, and the RTC correctly found, after an ocular inspection, that petitioners had such an expectation on their property. The cameras' operation, which spanned a significant portion of petitioners' land without their consent, was a clear violation of this right, justifying the issuance of the preliminary injunction.

• Right to Privacy — Defined as "the right to be let alone," it protects individuals from unwarranted exploitation or intrusion into their private activities. In this case, the Court affirmed that this right, as protected by Article 26(1) of the Civil Code, is not limited to one's home but extends to any place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, including a business office.
• Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Test — A two-part test used to determine if the right to privacy has been violated: (1) whether the individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy, and (2) whether this expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable. The Court applied this test to find that the petitioners had a reasonable expectation of privacy on their property, which was violated by the respondents' surveillance cameras.
• Real Party-in-Interest — Under Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, this is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment. A real party defendant is one who has a correlative legal obligation to redress a wrong. The Court identified the respondents as the real parties-in-interest despite their claim of being mere stockholders, as their actions directly caused the injury to the petitioners.
• Piercing the Corporate Veil — While not explicitly named, the doctrine was effectively applied. The Court disregarded the separate legal personality of Aldo Development & Resources, Inc., finding that respondents were using the corporate fiction as a shield to protect themselves from the suit, given the family-owned nature of the business and the respondents' direct actions and representations in the case.

• "Our Code specifically mentions ‘prying into the privacy of another’s residence.’ This does not mean, however, that only the residence is entitled to privacy, because the law covers also ‘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."

• Ople v. Torres — Cited as the source for the two-part "reasonable expectation of privacy" test used to determine if a violation of the right to privacy has occurred.
• Morfe v. Mutuc — Referenced in the opening quote of the decision to establish the broad philosophical underpinnings of liberty and the right to privacy.
• Reyes v. Enriquez — Cited to provide the definition of a "real party defendant" as one who has a correlative legal obligation to redress a wrong done to the plaintiff.

• Article 26(1), Civil Code — This is the central provision of the case, which states that "prying into the privacy of another's residence" is an act that produces a cause of action. The Court interpreted this provision expansively to include business offices and other private areas.
• Section 2, Rule 3, Rules of Court — This rule on "Parties-in-interest" was applied to determine that the respondents were the proper parties to be sued, as they were the ones who had a correlative obligation to redress the wrong they caused.
• Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution — Mentioned as the constitutional foundation of the right to privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures by the State, providing a broader context for the protection of privacy.