The issue of camera installation continues to plague property owners

and security dealers because there is so little precedent to rely upon.

House Bill no. 6672, or An Act Requiring Business Establishment All
Over The Philippines To Install Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Cameras
In Their Place Of Business As Ameans To Deter Crime, And For Other
Purposes, is yet to be enacted. The said bill requires notice of
surveillance as pronounced in Section 4 of the said bill to wit;
SEC 4. Notice of Surveillance The fact that surveillance
cameras have been installed in an establishment shall be
made known to the general public through a written notice
displayed in the entrance of the establishment.
However, as the same is yet to be enacted, it is still without any
binding legal effect. There are, however, some principals of law which
can be applied. One is that property owners do owe their tenants and
others lawfully on the property some degree of reasonable protection.
The level of duty has many variables.
The Hotel has a duty to provide reasonable security. However, it must
let people know that they are in an area where CCTV surveillance is
being carried out. The most effective way of doing this is by using
prominently placed signs at the entrance to the CCTV zone and
reinforcing this with further signs inside the area.
So pervasive has this technology been in our daily life that the manner
of its use was discussed and passed upon by the Supreme Court in the
case of Spouses Bill and Victoria Hing vs Alexander Choachuy Sr. and
Allan Choachuy, G.R. No. 179736, dated June 26, 2013.
The case involves two families that owned adjoining properties in
Mandaue City, Cebu. The Choachuys built an auto repair shop in their

premises. Later, the Hings began to construct a fence around their

property which was being used as a business office.
The Choachuys went to court to demand that their neighbor be ordered
to desist from constructing the fence because it allegedly did not have
a valid permit and that it would destroy the wall of their shop that was
adjacent to the fence.
The court denied the petition for failure to substantiate the damages
claimed. Smarting from this defeat, the Choachuys installed in their
shop two video surveillance cameras facing their neighbors property
to record the construction of the fence.
The Hings resented the installation of the cameras and, invoking
invasion of their right to privacy, asked the court to order the removal
of the CCTVs and illegal surveillance.
The court ruled in their favor and ordered the Choachuys to
immediately remove the revolving camera that they installed at the
left side of their building overlooking the side of (petitioners) lot and to
transfer and operate it elsewhere at the back
The losing parties appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals and
got a favorable ruling.
Invasion
The appellate court based its action on Art. 26 of the Civil Code which
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 shall produce a cause of action for damages,
prevention and other relief: (l) Prying into the privacy of another
residence.

Since the property subject of the controversy is not used as a

residence, the court said no violation of privacy could be imputed on
the Choachuys.
Unfazed, the Hings went to the Supreme Court to seek the reversal of
the latter ruling. They claimed that the Civil Code provision which
prohibited people from prying into the private lives of others also
included business offices.
In support of this stand, they cited the comments of Civil Law expert
former Sen. Arturo Tolentino who said the provision does not mean,
however, that only the residence is entitled to privacy, because the law
also applies to 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.
The tribunal agreed with Tolentinos comments on how a persons right
to privacy should be construed and understood.
It stated that the prohibition on prying into the privacy of anothers
residence also covers places, locations or situations which an individual
considers private, or in places where he has the right to exclude the
public or deny them access.
Reasonableness
To ensure the proper determination of that right to privacy, the tribunal
reiterated its earlier pronouncements on the reasonable expectation
of privacy test.
The test consists of two questions: (1) whether, by his conduct, the
individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy; and (2) this
expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable.

The reasonableness of such expectation is influenced by customs,

community norms and other practices. Thus, its determination must be
done on a case-by-case basis depending on the factual circumstances
surrounding the case.
Applying the test to the situation at hand, the tribunal said that 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 a reasonable expectation of privacy, unless the consent
of the individual whose right to privacy would be affected, was
obtained.
Nor should those cameras be used to pry into the privacy of anothers
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.
Bottom line, the CCTVs the Choachuys installed in their property that
faced directly the Hings property or covered a significant portion of it,
without the latters consent, is a clear violation of their right to privacy
and should therefore be removed.