Supreme Court Upholds Right to Privacy, Orders Removal of Surveillance Cameras Facing Neighbor’s Property

 The Supreme Court has ruled that the installation of surveillance cameras that capture activities within a neighboring private property violates the constitutional and civil right to privacy, even if the area is not used as a residence.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice , the Court’s Second Division granted the petition of Spouses Bill and Victoria Hing and reinstated the injunction ordering the removal of surveillance cameras installed by the respondents.

Background of the Case

The controversy arose between neighboring property owners in Mandaue City, Cebu.

Spouses Hing owned a parcel of land where construction was ongoing. Adjacent to their property was a commercial establishment operated by a corporation associated with respondents Alexander and Allan Choachuy.

After failing to secure an injunction in a prior case, the respondents caused the installation of video surveillance cameras mounted on their building, including a revolving camera that captured a substantial portion of the Hing property, including ongoing construction and activities within the premises.

The spouses objected, claiming that the cameras were installed to monitor and record their private activities without consent, prompting them to file a complaint for injunction and damages.

The Regional Trial Court granted a writ of preliminary injunction and ordered the removal and repositioning of the cameras. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that there was no violation of privacy since the property was not a residence and that respondents were not proper parties.

Ruling of the Court

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the trial court.

It emphasized that the right to privacy is the right to be let alone, protected not only by the Constitution but also by Article 26 of the Civil Code.

The Court rejected the narrow view that privacy applies only to residences. It clarified that privacy extends to places where a person has the right to exclude the public, including business premises or private property not open to general access.

"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 reasonable expectation of privacy, unless the consent of the individual, whose right to privacy would be affected, was obtained. Nor should these cameras be used to pry into the privacy of another’s 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." - the Decision reads.

Applying the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test, the Court found that the spouses had a legitimate expectation that activities within their property would not be subject to surveillance by neighbors. This expectation was violated when the cameras were positioned in such a way that they captured areas beyond the respondents’ own property.

The Court stressed that while surveillance cameras may be installed for security, they cannot be used to intrude into the private affairs of others, as this would amount to prying into one’s privacy.

The Court clarified that:

The right to privacy extends beyond residences and includes business premises or private areas where access is restricted.

The reasonable expectation of privacy test governs whether intrusion exists.

The installation of surveillance devices becomes unlawful when it captures or intrudes into areas where another person has a legitimate expectation of privacy.

Corporate personality cannot be used to evade liability where individuals are personally involved in the wrongful act.

FOOTNOTES 

Hing vs. Choachuy, et al., G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013, Second Division, Per DEL CASTILLO, J.