Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 237 views

    09 Sps. Hing Vs Chuachut GR No. 179736 June 26, 2013

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Dag-um Macalolot
    This case involves a dispute between neighboring landowners over the installation of video surveillance cameras by the respondents. The petitioners claimed the cameras violated their right to privacy, as the cameras filmed their property. The court found that the cameras did violate the petitioners' privacy rights, as they filmed a good portion of the petitioners' land, not just the respondents' property. The court reinstated the order of the regional trial court granting the petitioners' application for a temporary restraining order to prevent further privacy violations by the respondents.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    09 Sps. Hing Vs Chuachut GR No. 179736 June 26, 2013

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Dag-um Macalolot
    237 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute between neighboring landowners over the installation of video surveillance cameras by the respondents. The petitioners claimed the cameras violated their right to privacy, as the cameras filmed their property. The court found that the cameras did violate the petitioners' privacy rights, as they filmed a good portion of the petitioners' land, not just the respondents' property. The court reinstated the order of the regional trial court granting the petitioners' application for a temporary restraining order to prevent further privacy violations by the respondents.

    Original Title

    09 Sps. Hing vs Chuachut GR No. 179736 June 26, 2013

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute between neighboring landowners over the installation of video surveillance cameras by the respondents. The petitioners claimed the cameras violated their right to privacy, as the cameras filmed their property. The court found that the cameras did violate the petitioners' privacy rights, as they filmed a good portion of the petitioners' land, not just the respondents' property. The court reinstated the order of the regional trial court granting the petitioners' application for a temporary restraining order to prevent further privacy violations by the respondents.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    237 views1 page

    09 Sps. Hing Vs Chuachut GR No. 179736 June 26, 2013

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Dag-um Macalolot
    This case involves a dispute between neighboring landowners over the installation of video surveillance cameras by the respondents. The petitioners claimed the cameras violated their right to privacy, as the cameras filmed their property. The court found that the cameras did violate the petitioners' privacy rights, as they filmed a good portion of the petitioners' land, not just the respondents' property. The court reinstated the order of the regional trial court granting the petitioners' application for a temporary restraining order to prevent further privacy violations by the respondents.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    SPS. BILL AND VICTORIA HING v. ALEXANDER CHOACHUY, GR No.

    179736, 2013-06-26
    Facts:
    Petitioner-spouses Bill and Victoria Hing filed with the RTC a Complaint for Injunction and Damages
    with prayer for issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction/TRO against respondents
    Alexander Choachuy, Sr. and Allan Choachuy.
    Petitioners alleged that they are the registered owners of a parcel of land and that respondents are
    the owners of Aldo Development located adjacent to the property of petitioners; that respondents
    constructed an auto-repair shop building; Aldo filed a case against petitioners for Injunction and
    Damages with Writ of Preliminary Injunction/TRO.
    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; that the
    court, in that case, denied Aldo's application for preliminary injunction for failure to substantiate its
    allegations; that, in order to get evidence to support legally set-up and installed on the building of
    Aldo Goodyear Servitec two video surveillance cameras facing petitioners' property; petitioners' right
    to privacy.
    In their Complaint, petitioners claimed that respondents installed the video surveillance cameras in
    order to fish for evidence, which could be used against petitioners in another case.  During the
    hearing of the application for Preliminary Injunction, petitioner Bill testified that when respondents
    installed the video surveillance cameras, he immediately broached his concerns but they did not
    seem to care, and thus, he reported the matter to the barangay for mediation, and eventually, filed a
    Complaint against respondents before the RTC.
    Moreover, although Aldo has a juridical personality separate and distinct from its stockholders,
    records show that it is a family-owned corporation managed by the Choachuy family.
    Issues:
    Essentially, the issues boil down to (1) whether there is a violation of petitioners' right to privacy, and
    (2) whether respondents are the proper parties to this suit.
    This brings us to the next question: whether respondents are the proper parties to this suit.
    Ruling:
    Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. 
    After careful consideration, there is basis to grant the application for a temporary restraining order.
    The operation by [respondents] of a revolving camera, even if it were mounted on their building,
    violated the right of privacy of [petitioners], who are the owners... of the adjacent lot.  The camera
    does not only focus on [respondents'] property or the roof of the factory at the back (Aldo
    Development and Resources, Inc.) but it actually spans through a good portion of [the] land of
    [petitioners].
    Article 26 of the Civil Code protects an individual's right to privacy and provides a legal remedy
    against abuses that may be committed against him by other individuals.  It states that every person
    shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. 
    The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a
    cause of action for damages.
    WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED.  The Decision of the Court of Appeals are hereby
    REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City are hereby
    REINSTATED and AFFIRMED.

                  

    You might also like