Spouses Bill and Victoria Hing Vs. Alexander Choachuy, Sr. and Allan Choachuy G.R. No. 179736. June 26, 2013

Spouses Bill and Victoria Hing Vs. Alexander Choachuy, Sr. and Allan Choachuy G.R. No. 179736. June 26, 2013

List of SC Decisions

Mariano Del Castillo

## Issues

I.

THE X X X [CA] COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN
IT ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE [RTC] DATED 18 OCTOBER 2005
AND 6 FEBRUARY 2006 HOLDING THAT THEY WERE ISSUED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF

DISCRETION.

II.

THE X X X [CA] COMMITTED A
REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT PETITIONER SPOUSES HING ARE NOT
ENTITLED TO THE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE
IS NO VIOLATION OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIL RIGHT TO PRIVACY
DESPITE THE FACTUAL FINDINGS [OF] THE RTC, WHICH RESPONDENTS CHOACHUY
FAILED TO REFUTE, THAT THE ILLEGALLY INSTALLED SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS OF
RESPONDENTS CHOACH[U]Y WOULD CAPTURE THE PRIVATE ACTIVITIES OF

PETITIONER SPOUSES HING, THEIR CHILDREN AND EMPLOYEES.

III.

THE
 X X X [CA] COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT SINCE THE
OWNER OF THE BUILDING IS ALDO DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCES, INC. THEN TO
SUE RESPONDENTS CHOACHUY CONSTITUTE[S] A PURPORTEDLY UNWARRANTED

PIERCING OF THE CORPORATE VEIL.

IV.

THE X X
 X [CA] COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT IGNORED THE SERIOUS FORMAL
DEFICIENCIES OF BOTH THE PETITION AND THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
DATED 15 MARCH 2006 OF RESPONDENT[S] CHOACH[U]Y AND GAVE X X X THEM DUE
COURSE AND CONSIDERATION.

* The right to privacy is the right to be let alone.
* It is the right of an individual “to be free from unwarranted publicity, or to live without unwarranted interference by the public in matters in which the public is not necessarily concerned.”[46]  Simply put, the right to privacy is “the right to be let alone.”
* The right to privacy under Article 26(1)of the Civil Code covers business offices where the public are excluded therefrom and only certain individuals are allowed to enter.
* 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.
* A real party defendant is one who has a correlative legal obligation to redressa wrong done to the plaintiff by reason of the defendant's act or omission which had violated the legal right of the former.
* The RTC, thus, considered that petitioners have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in their property, whether they use it as a business office or as a residence and that the installation of video surveillance cameras directly facing petitioners’ property or covering a significant portion thereof, without their consent, is a clear violation of their right to privacy
* A real party defendant is one who has a correlative legal obligation to redress a wrong done to the plaintiff by reason of the defendant's act or omission which had violated the legal right of the former.
* 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.
* All these taken together lead us to the inevitable conclusion that respondents are merely using the corporate fiction of Aldo as a shield to protect themselves from this suit.  In view of the foregoing, we find that respondents are the proper parties to this suit.

## Decisions

**WHEREFORE**, the Petition is hereby **GRANTED**.  The Decision
dated July 10, 2007 and the Resolution dated September 11, 2007 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 01473 are hereby **REVERSED** and **SET ASIDE**. The Orders dated October 18, 2005 and February 6, 200[6] of Branch 28 of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City in Civil Case No. MAN-5223 are hereby **REINSTATED** and **AFFIRMED**.