WRIT OF AMPARO/HABEAS DATA evidence left by the torture they suffered or landmarks they can identify in Whether or not

can identify in Whether or not petitioner’s right to liberty has been violated or threatened
the places where they were detained. with violation by the issuance of the subject HDO, which would entitle him to
Republic of the Philippines the privilege of the Writ of Amparo.
Supreme Court 2. Yes. Covered by the privilege of the writ, respondents must meet the
Manila threshold requirement that their right to life, liberty and security is violated or RULING:
EN BANC threatened with an unlawful act or omission. The right to security of person is
THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES “freedom from fear.” In The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) No. The right to travel refers to the right to move from one place to another.
OF THE PHILIPPINES, states that “a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech The restriction on petitioner’s right to travel as a consequence of the
Petitioners, and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the pendency of the criminal case filed against him was not unlawful. Petitioner
- versus – highest aspiration of the common people.” Moreover, the right to security of has also failed to establish that his right to travel was impaired in the manner
RAYMOND MANALO and REYNALDO MANALO, person is a guarantee of protection of one’s rights by the government. As and to the extent that it amounted to a serious violation of his right to life,
Respondents. G.R. No. 180906 the government is the chief guarantor of order and security, the liberty and security, for which there exists no readily available legal recourse
Constitutional guarantee of the rights to life, liberty and security of person is or remedy.
FACTS: rendered ineffective if government does not afford protection to these rights
especially when they are under threat. We see no point in separately and directly intervening through a writ of
On February 14, 2006, Raymond was sleeping in their house in Buhol na amparo in the absence of any clear prima facie showing that the right to
Mangga, San Ildefonso, Bulacan. At past noon, he was abducted by Republic of the Philippines life, liberty or security, the personal concern that the writ is intended to
CAFGU members. The van drove off, then came to a stop. A person was protect is immediately in danger or threatened, or that the danger or threat
brought inside the van and made to sit beside Raymond. Both of them were SUPREME COURT is continuing. We see no legal bar, however, to an application for the
beaten up. On the road, he recognized the voice of the person beside him Manila issuance of the writ, in a proper case, by motion in a pending case on
as his brother Reynaldo’s. They were suspected as members of the NPA. In EN BANC appeal or on certiorari, applying by analogy the provisions on the co-
the next days, Raymond’s interrogators appeared to be high officials as the G.R. No. 182161 December 3, 2009 existence of the writ with a separately filed criminal case.
soldiers who beat him up would salute them, call them “sir,” and treat them Reverend Father ROBERT P. REYES, Petitioner,
with respect. After 18 months of detention and torture, the brothers vs. Additionally, petitioner is seeking the extraordinary writ of amparo due to his
escaped on August 13, 2007. RAUL M. GONZALEZ, in his capacity as the secretary of the COURT OF apprehension that the DOJ may deny his motion to lift the HDO.28
APPEALS, secretary DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND COMMISSIONER Petitioner’s apprehension is at best merely speculative. Thus, he has failed to
Respondents initially filed an action for “Prohibition, Injunction, and MARCELINO C. LIBANAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE COMMISSIONER OF THE show any clear threat to his right to liberty actionable through a petition for
Temporary Restraining Order”to stop petitioners and/or their officers and BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, Respondents. a writ of amparo. The absence of an actual controversy also renders it
agents from depriving the respondents of their right to liberty and other unnecessary for us on this occasion to pass upon the constitutionality of DOJ
basic rights on August 23, 2007, prior to the promulgation of the Amparo Circular No. 17, Series of 1998 (Prescribing Rules and Regulations Governing
Rule. When the Amparo Rule came into effect on October 24, 2007, they FACTS: the Issuance of Hold Departure Orders); and Circular No. 18, Series of 2007
moved to have their petition treated as an amparo petition. The Court (Prescribing Rules and Regulations Governing the Issuance and
granted their motion. Petitioner was among those arrested in the Manila Peninsula Hotel siege on Implementation of Watchlist Orders and for Other Purposes)
November 30, 2007. In the morning of November 30, 2007, petitioner
On December 26, 2007, the Court of Appeals granted the privilege of the together with fifty (50) others, were brought to Camp Crame to await
writ of amparo. The CA ordered the Secretary of National Defense and the inquest proceedings. In the evening of the same day, the Department of Republic of the Philippines
Chief of Staff of the AFP to furnish the the two borthers and the court with allJustice (DOJ) Panel of Prosecutors, composed of Emmanuel Y. Velasco, Supreme Court
official and unofficial investigation reports as to their custody, confirm the Phillip L. Dela Cruz and Aristotle M. Reyes, conducted inquest proceedings to Manila
present places of official assignment of two military officials involved, and ascertain whether or not there was probable cause to hold petitioner and
produce all medical reports and records of the Manalo brothers while under the others for trial on charges of Rebellion and/or Inciting to Rebellion. EN BANC
military custody. The Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of
the AFP appealed to the SC seeking to reverse and set aside the decision On December 1, 2007, upon the request of the Department of Interior and IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA
promulgated by the CA. Local Government (DILG), respondent DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzales issued IN FAVOR OF NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ,
Hold Departure Order (HDO) No. 45 ordering respondent Commissioner of NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ,
ISSUES: Immigration to include in the Hold Departure List of the Bureau of Petitioner,
Immigration and Deportation (BID) the name of petitioner and 49 others - versus –
1. Whether or not statements from the victims is sufficient for amparo relative to the aforementioned case in the interest of national security and GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. VICTOR S. IBRADO, PDG JESUS AME
petitions. public safety. VERSOZA, LT. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, MAJ. GEN. NESTOR Z. OCHOA, P/CSUPT.
AMETO G. TOLENTINO, P/SSUPT. JUDE W. SANTOS, COL. REMIGIO M. DE VERA,
2. Whether or not actual deprivation of liberty is necessary to invoke the right The RTC however dismissed the charge against him but the HDO was still in an officer named MATUTINA, LT. COL. MINA, CALOG, GEORGE PALACPAC
to security of a person effect. Petitioner requested that HDO should be lifted in view of the dismissal under the name HARRY, ANTONIO CRUZ, ALDWIN BONG PASICOLAN and
of the criminal case. Petitioner argued that a writ of amparo should be VINCENT CALLAGAN,
RULING: issued against the respondents, violating the whole breadth of rights Respondents. G.R. No. 191805
enshrined in the Constitution, specifically, his right to travel.
1. Yes. Much of the information and evidence of the ordeal will come from IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA
the victims themselves, and the veracity of their account will depend on ISSUE: IN FAVOR OF NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ,
their credibility and candidness in their written and oral statements. Their POLICE DIR. GEN. JESUS A. VERSOZA, P/SSUPT. JUDE W. SANTOS, BGEN.
statements can be corroborated by other evidence such as physical REMEGIO M. DE VERA, 1ST LT. RYAN S. MATUTINA, LT. COL. LAURENCE E. MINA,
ANTONIO C. CRUZ, ALDWIN C. PASICOLAN and VICENTE A. CALLAGAN,
 Petitioners 1. Whether or not President Arroyo should be dropped as a respondent by FIRST DIVISION
- versus – virtue of her presidential immunity from suit
NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ, G.R. No. 203254, October 08, 2014
Respondent. G.R. No. 193160 2. Whether or not the doctrine of command responsibility can be used in
writs of amparo and habeas data cases. DR. JOY MARGATE LEE, Petitioner, v. P/SUPT. NERI A. ILAGAN, Respondent.
FACTS:
HELD: FACTS:
Noriel Rodriguez (petitioner) is a member of Alyansa Dagiti Mannalon Iti
Cagayan, a peasant organization affiliated with Kilusang Magbubukid ng (1) CA’s rationale does not stand anymore since the presidential immunity Neri, a police officer, filed a petition for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Data
Pilipinas (KMP). Under the Oplan Bantay Laya, the military tagged KMP from suits only applies during her incumbency. “Incumbent Presidents are against Joy, her former common law partner. According to him, sometime in
members as an enemy of the state, making its members an easy target of immune from suit or from being brought to court during the period of their July 2011, he visited Joy’s condominium and rested for a while. When he
extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances. incumbency and tenure but not beyond.” “A non-sitting President does not arrived at his office, he noticed his digital camera missing. On August 23,
enjoy immunity from suit, even for acts committed during the latter’s tenure. 2011, Joy confronted him about a purported sex video she discovered from
On September 6, 2009, Rodriguez just alighted from a tricycle driven by We emphasize our ruling therein that courts should look with disfavor upon the digital camera showing him and another woman. He denied the video
Hermie Antonio Carlos in Brgy. Tapel, Cagayan, when 4 men forcibly took the presidential privilege of immunity, especially when it impedes the search and demanded the return of the camera, but she refused. The had an
him and forced him to get inside a car where more men in civilian clothing for truth or impairs the vindication of a right.” altercation where Neri allegedly slammed Joy’s head against a wall and
were waiting (1 was holding a .45 caliber pistol). The men started punching then walked away.
Rodriguez inside the car, and forced him to confess that he is a member of Term vs Tenure: The term means the time during which the officer may claim
the New People’s Army (NPA). Rodriguez remained silent until they reached to hold the office as of right, and fixes the interval after which the several Because of this, Joy filed several cases against him, including a case for
a military camp belonging to the 17th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine incumbents shall succeed one another. The tenure represents the term violation of Republic Act 9262 and administrative cases before the
Army. Rodriguez was then subjected to beatings and torture by members of during which the incumbent actually holds office. The tenure may be shorter Napolcom, utilising the said video.
the Philippine Army. Members of the army wanted him to admit that he is an than the term for reasons within or beyond the power of the incumbent. The
NPA member and then pinpoint other NPA members and camp locations. intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution is to limit the president’s The use of the same violated his life to liberty, security and privacy and that
Since Rodriguez cannot answer, he is repeatedly beaten and tortured. immunity from suits during their tenure (and not term). “It is clear that former of the other woman, thus he had no choice but to file the petition for
Rodriguez was also coerced to sign several documents to declare that he is President Arroyo cannot use the presidential immunity from suit to shield issuance of the writ of habeas data.
a surenderree. herself from judicial scrutiny that would assess whether, within the context of
amparo proceedings, she was responsible or accountable for the abduction After finding the petition sufficient in form and substance, the RTC issued the
On September 17, 2009, Rodriguez’s mother and brother came to see him of Rodriguez.” writ and directed Joy to appear before the RTC and produce Neri’s digital
(accompanied by members of the CHR – Pasicolan, Cruz and Callagan). camera, as well as the original and copies of the video, and to make a
They insisted to take Rodriguez home with them to Manila. Rodriguez arrived (2) Yes. The doctrine of command responsibility may be used to determine return within five days from receipt. In her return,. Joy admitted keeping the
in Manila on September 18. Callagan and 2 military members went inside whether respondents are accountable for and have the duty to address the memory card of the digital camera and reproducing the video but only for
their house and took pictures for around 30 minutes despite Rodriguez’s abduction of Rodriguez in order to enable the courts to devise remedial use as evidence in the cases she filed against Neri. Neri’s petitions should be
effort to stop them. measures to protect his rights. dismissed because its filing was only aimed at suppressing the evidence in
the cases she filed against him; and she is not engaged in the gathering,
On November 3, Rodriguez and his girlfriend notices that several suspicious- Proceedings under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo do not determine collecting, or storing of data regarding the person of Neri. The RTC granted
looking men are following them on the streets, jeepney and MRT. criminal, civil or administrative liability, but this should not abate the Neri’s petition and ordered the turn-over of the video to Neri and enjoined
applicability of the doctrine of command responsibility. “In the context of Joy from reproducing the same. It disregarded Joy’s defense that she is not
On December 7, Rodriguez filed a Petition for the Writ of Amparo and amparo proceedings, responsibility may refer to the participation of the engaged in the collection, gathering and storage of data, and that her acts
Petition for the Writ of Habeas Data with Prayers for Protection Orders, respondents, by action or omission, in enforced disappearance. of reproducing the same and showing it to other persons (Napolcom)
Inspection of Place, and Production of Documents and Personal Properties Accountability, on the other hand, may attach to respondents who are violated Neri’s right to privacy and humiliated him. It clarified that it ruling
dated 2 December 2009. The petition was filed against former President imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who only on the return of the video and not on its admissibility as evidence.
Arroyo, Gen. Ibrado, PDG. Versoza, Lt. Gen. Bangit, Major General (Maj. carry the burden of disclosure; or those who carry, but have failed to Dissatisfied, Joy filed the instant petition before the Supreme Court.
Gen.) Nestor Z. Ochoa, P/CSupt. Tolentino, P/SSupt. Santos, Col. De Vera, 1st discharge, the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the
Lt. Matutina, Calog, George Palacpac, Cruz, Pasicolan and Callagan. enforced disappearance.” ISSUE:

Respondents contend that Rodriguez is a double agent, and had been
working as their informant/infiltrator in the fight against NPA rebels. Then
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, through the solicitor-general, insisted on
her immunity from suits (by virtue of her position as president). Supreme Court
granted the writs after finding that the petition sufficiently alleged the
abduction and torture of Rodriguez by members of the Philippine Army. SC
directed the Court of Appeals to hear the petition. CA ruled in favor of
Rodriguez and found Ibrado, Versoza, Bangit, Ochoa, Tolentino, Santos, De
Vera and Matutina liable for his abduction and torture. As to Calog and
Palacpac, the case was dismissed for lack of merit. On President Arroyo, the
case was dismissed on account of her immunity from suits.
ISSUE:
“Despite maintaining former President Arroyo in the list of respondents in G.R.
No. 191805, and allowing the application of the command responsibility
doctrine to amparo and habeas data proceedings, Rodriguez failed to
prove through substantial evidence that former President Arroyo was
responsible or accountable for the violation of his rights to life, liberty and
property. He likewise failed to prove through substantial evidence the
accountability or responsibility of respondents Maj. Gen. Ochoa, Cruz,
Pasicolan and Callagan.”
SC affirmed the decision of the CA, but with modifications. The case is
dismissed with respect to respondents former President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo, P/CSupt. Ameto G. Tolentino, and P/SSupt. Jude W. Santos, Calog,
George Palacpac, Antonio Cruz, Aldwin Pasicolan and Vicent Callagan for
lack of merit.
Whether or not the filing of the petition for issuance of the writ of habeas
data was proper
RULING:
NO.
A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, or the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data (Habeas Data
Rule), was conceived as a response, given the lack of effective and
available remedies, to address the extraordinary rise in the number of killings
and enforced disappearances[1]. It was conceptualized as a judicial
remedy enforcing the right to privacy, most especially the right to
informational privacy of individuals[2], which is defined as “the right to
control the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of data about
oneself[3].”
As defined in Section 1 of the Habeas Data Rule, the writ of habeas data
now stands as “a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in
life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission
of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged
in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the
person, family, home, and correspondence of the aggrieved party.” Thus, in
order to support a petition for the issuance of such writ, Section 6 of the
Habeas Data Rule essentially requires that the petition sufficiently alleges,
among others, “[t]he manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened
and how it affects the right to life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party.”
In other words, the petition must adequately show that there exists a nexus
between the right to privacy on the one hand, and the right to life, liberty or
security on the other[4]. Corollarily, the allegations in the petition must be
supported by substantial evidence showing an actual or threatened
violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim[5]. In this
relation, it bears pointing out that the writ of habeas data will not issue to
protect purely property or commercial concerns nor when the grounds
invoked in support of the petitions therefor are vague and doubtful.
In this case, the Court finds that Ilagan was not able to sufficiently allege that
his right to privacy in life, liberty or security was or would be violated through
the supposed reproduction and threatened dissemination of the subject sex
video. While Ilagan purports a privacy interest in the suppression of this video
– which he fears would somehow find its way to Quiapo or be uploaded in
the internet for public consumption – he failed to explain the connection
between such interest and any violation of his right to life, liberty or security.
Indeed, courts cannot speculate or contrive versions of possible
transgressions. As the rules and existing jurisprudence on the matter evoke,
alleging and eventually proving the nexus between one’s privacy right to
the cogent rights to life, liberty or security are crucial in habeas data cases,
so much so that a failure on either account certainly renders a habeas data
petition dismissible, as in this case.
In fact, even discounting the insufficiency of the allegations, the petition
would equally be dismissible due to the inadequacy of the evidence
presented. As the records show, all that Ilagan submitted in support of his
petition was his self-serving testimony which hardly meets the substantial
evidence requirement as prescribed by the Habeas Data Rule. This is
because nothing therein would indicate that Lee actually proceeded to
commit any overt act towards the end of violating Ilagan’s right to privacy in
life, liberty or security. Nor would anything on record even lead a reasonable
mind to conclude[7] that Lee was going to use the subject video in order to
achieve unlawful ends – say for instance, to spread it to the public so as to
ruin Ilagan’s reputation. Contrastingly, Lee even made it clear in her
testimony that the only reason why she reproduced the subject video was to
legitimately utilize the same as evidence in the criminal and administrative
cases that she filed against Ilagan[8]. Hence, due to the insufficiency of the
allegations as well as the glaring absence of substantial evidence, the Court
finds it proper to reverse the RTC Decision and dismiss the habeas data
petition.
RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 193636 July 24, 2012
MARYNETTE R. GAMBOA, Petitioner,
vs.
P/SSUPT. MARLOU C. CHAN, in his capacity as the PNP-Provincial Director of
Ilocos Norte, and P/SUPT. WILLIAM 0. FANG, in his capacity as Chief,
Intelligence Division, PNP Provincial Office, Ilocos Norte, Respondents.
FACTS:
Former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued Admin No. 275 creating
Zeñarosa Commission which was formed to investigate the existence of
private army groups in the country in view of eliminating and dismantling
them permanently in the future. Upon conclusion of its investigation, the
Commission submitted a confidential report to the office of the President.
Marynette Gamboa was the Mayor of Dingras, Ilocos Norte. Gamboa
alleged that the Philippine National Police Ilocos Norte conducted
surveillance operation against her and her aides and classified her as PAG
coddler. Purportedly without the benefit of data verification, PNP forwarded
in the Report’s enumeration of individual maintaining PAGs.
Gamboa’s association with PAG was published and released in the different
forms of media, publicly tagging her as a PAG coddler. Alleging that her
right to privacy was violated, Gamboa filed a petition before the RTC for the
issuance of writ of habeas data to destroy the unverified reports from the
PNP data base and restrain PNP from forwarding baseless reports against
her. The RTC ruled that the inclusion of Gamboa in the report violates her
right to privacy. However, the RTC dismissed Gamboa’s petition for writ of
habeas data saying that Gamboa failed to establish the source of the
information.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the forwarding or information or intelligence report
by the PNP to the Commission was an unlawful act that violated
petitioner’s right to privacy FACTS:
2. Whether or not resort to petition for writ of habeas data was proper
HELD:
Forwarding of information or intelligence report gathered by the PNP to the
Commission is NOT an intrusion of petitioner’s right to privacy
It is clear that the issuance of AO 275 articulates a legitimate aim which is to
investigate the existence of PAGs with the ultimate objective of dismantling
them permanently. Pursuant to the state interest of dismantling PAGs, as well
as the powers and functions accorded to the Commission and the PNP, the
latter collected information on individuals suspected of maintaining PAGs,
monitored them and counteracted their activities. One of those individuals is
herein petitioner Gamboa.
This court holds that Gamboa was able to sufficiently establish that the data ISSUES:
contained in the report listing her as a PAG coddler came from the PNP
contrary to the ruling of the trial court, however, the forwarding of 1. Whether or not the voice recording is admissible in evidence in view of RA
information by the PNP to the Commission was not unlawful act that violated 4200, which prohibits wire tapping.
or threatened her right to privacy in life, liberty or security. The PNP was
rationally expected to forward and share intelligence regarding PAGs with
the body specifically created for the purpose of investigating the existence
of these notorious group. Moreover, the Commission was explicitly
authorized to deputize the police force in the fulfillment of the former’s
mandate, and thus had the power to request assistance from the latter.
Petition for writ of habeas data is NOT PROPER
In this case, Chan and Fang admitted the existence of report, but
emphasized its confidential nature. That it was leaked to third parties and
the media was regrettable, even warranting reproach. But it must be
stressed that Gamboa failed to establish that PNP was responsible for his
unintended disclosure. In any event, there are other reliefs available to her
to address the purported damage to her reputation, making a resort to the
extraordinary remedy of the writ of habeas data unnecessary and improper.
Gamboa failed to prove through substantial evidence that her
inclusion in the list of individuals made her and her supporters susceptible to
harassment and to increased police surveillance. As public officials, they
enjoy presumption of regularity, which she failed to overcome. Therefore,
the privilege of the writ of habeas data must be denied.
PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 121087 August 26, 1999
FELIPE NAVARRO, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Two local media men, Stanley Jalbuena, Enrique Lingan, in Lucena City
wnet to the police station to report alledged indecent show in one of the
night establishment shows in the City. At the station, a heated confrontation
followed between victim Lingan and accused policeman Navarro who was
then having drinks outside the headquarters, lead to a fisticuffs. The victim
was hit with the handle of the accused's gun below the left eyebrow,
followed by a fist blow, resulted the victim to fell and died under treatment.
The exchange of words was recorded on tape, specifically the frantic
exclamations made by Navarro after the altercation that it was the victim
who provoked the fight. During the trial, Jalbuena, the other media man ,
testified. Presented in evidence to confirm his testimony was a voice
recording he had made of the heated discussion at the police station
between the accused police officer Navarro and the deceased, Lingan,
which was taken without the knowledge of the two.
2. Whether the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation or threat Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information, which the RTC later on or to impart.” In its ordinary signification, communication connotes the act of
on the part of the offended party and lack of intention to commit so grave a granted, on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, sharing or imparting signification, communication connotes the act of
wrong may be appreciated in favor of the accused. particularly a violation of R.A. 4200. sharing or imparting, as in a conversation, or signifies the “process by which
meanings or thoughts are shared between individuals through a common
HELD: The CA declared the RTC’s decision null and void and denied the system of symbols (as language signs or gestures)”
petitioner’s MR, hence the instant petition.
1. The answer is affirmative, the tape is admissible in view of RA 4200, which These definitions are broad enough to include verbal or non-verbal, written
prohibits wire tapping. Jalbuena's testimony is confirmed by the voice ISSUE: or expressive communications of “meanings or thoughts” which are likely to
recording he had made. include the emotionally-charged exchange, on February 22, 1988, between
Whether or not the Anti-Wiretapping Act applies in recordings by one of the petitioner and private respondent, in the privacy of the latter’s office. Any
The law prohibits the overhearing, intercepting, or recording of private parties in the conversation doubts about the legislative body’s meaning of the phrase “private
communications (Ramirez v Court of Appeals, 248 SCRA 590 [1995]). Snce communication” are, furthermore, put to rest by the fact that the terms
the exchange between petitioner Navarro and Lingan was not private, its HELD: “conversation” and “communication” were interchangeably used by
tape recording is not prohibited. Senator Tañada in his Explanatory Note to the Bill.
Yes. Section 1 of R.A. 4200 entitled, ” An Act to Prohibit and Penalized Wire
2. The remarks of Lingan, which immediately preceded the acts of the Tapping and Other Related Violations of Private Communication and Other Republic of the Philippines
accused, constituted sufficient provocation. Provocation is said to be any Purposes,” provides: SUPREME COURT
unjust or improper conduct of the offended party capable of exciting, Manila
annoying or irritating someone. The provocation must be sufficient and must Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the SECOND DIVISION
immediately precede the act; and in order to be sufficient, it must be parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or
adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong, which must be cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, G.R. No. 107383 February 20, 1996
accordingly proportionate in gravity. The mitigating circumstance of lack of intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device
intention to commit so grave a wrong must also be considered. The commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or CECILIA ZULUETA, petitioner,
exclamations made by Navarro after the scuffle that it was Lingan who walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described. vs.
provoked him showed that he had no intent to kill the latter. COURT OF APPEALS and ALFREDO MARTIN, respondents.
The aforestated provision clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any FACTS:
Republic of the Philippines person, not authorized by all the parties to any private communication to
SUPREME COURT secretly record such communication by means of a tape recorder. The law This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming the
Manila makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized by the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch X) which ordered
statute ought to be a party other than or different from those involved in the petitioner to return documents and papers taken by her from private
FIRST DIVISION private communication. The statute’s intent to penalize all persons respondent's clinic without the latter's knowledge and consent.
unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the use of the
G.R. No. 93833 September 28, 1995 qualifier “any”. Consequently, as respondent Court of Appeals correctly Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private respondent Alfredo Martin. On
concluded, “even a (person) privy to a communication who records his March 26, 1982, petitioner entered the clinic of her husband, a doctor of
SOCORRO D. RAMIREZ, petitioner, private conversation with another without the knowledge of the latter (will) medicine, and in the presence of her mother, a driver and private
vs. qualify as a violator” under this provision of R.A. 4200. respondent's secretary, forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet in her
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, and ESTER S. GARCIA, respondents. husband's clinic and took 157 documents consisting of private
A perusal of the Senate Congressional Records, moreover, supports the correspondence between Dr. Martin and his alleged paramours, greetings
respondent court’s conclusion that in enacting R.A. 4200 our lawmakers cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr. Martin's passport, and photographs. The
FACTS: indeed contemplated to make illegal, unauthorized tape recording of documents and papers were seized for use in evidence in a case for legal
private conversations or communications taken either by the parties separation and for disqualification from the practice of medicine which
A civil case damages was filed by petitioner Socorro Ramirez in the Quezon themselves or by third persons. petitioner had filed against her husband.
City RTC alleging that the private respondent, Ester Garcia, in a
confrontation in the latter’s office, allegedly vexed, insulted and humiliated The nature of the conversations is immaterial to a violation of the statute. The ISSUE:
her in a “hostile and furious mood” and in a manner offensive to petitioner’s substance of the same need not be specifically alleged in the information.
dignity and personality,” contrary to morals, good customs and public What R.A. 4200 penalizes are the acts of secretly overhearing, intercepting Whether or not the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in
policy.” or recording private communications by means of the devices enumerated evidence
therein. The mere allegation that an individual made a secret recording of a
In support of her claim, petitioner produced a verbatim transcript of the private communication by means of a tape recorder would suffice to HELD:
event and sought damages. The transcript on which the civil case was constitute an offense under Section 1 of R.A. 4200. As the Solicitor General
based was culled from a tape recording of the confrontation made by pointed out in his COMMENT before the respondent court: “Nowhere (in the No. Indeed the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in
petitioner. said law) is it required that before one can be regarded as a violator, the evidence. The constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of
nature of the conversation, as well as its communication to a third person communication and correspondence [to be] inviolable" is no less applicable
As a result of petitioner’s recording of the event and alleging that the said should be professed.” simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband's
act of secretly taping the confrontation was illegal, private respondent filed infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is to be
a criminal case before the Pasay RTC for violation of Republic Act 4200, Petitioner’s contention that the phrase “private communication” in Section 1 enforced. The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is
entitled “An Act to prohibit and penalize wire tapping and other related of R.A. 4200 does not include “private conversations” narrows the ordinary a "lawful order [from a] court or when public safety or order requires
violations of private communication, and other purposes.” meaning of the word “communication” to a point of absurdity. The word otherwise, as prescribed by law." Any violation of this provision renders the
communicate comes from the latin word communicare, meaning “to share evidence obtained inadmissible "for any purpose in any proceeding."
The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in
breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for
any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage,
does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the
constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her.
The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses
by making it privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against
the other without the consent of the affected spouse while the marriage
subsists. Neither may be examined without the consent of the other as to
any communication received in confidence by one from the other during
the marriage, save for specified exceptions. But one thing is freedom of
communication; quite another is a compulsion for each one to share what
one knows with the other. And this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity
that each owes to the other.
The review for petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 113271 October 16, 1997
WATEROUS DRUG CORPORATION and MS. EMMA CO, petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ANTONIA MELODIA
CATOLICO, respondents.
FACTS:
This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeks to declare
private respondent Antonia Melodia Catolico (hereafter Catolico) not a true
Servant, thereby assailing the 30 September 1993 decision and 2 December
1993 Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC-
NCR CA No. 005160-93, which sustained the reinstatement and monetary
awards in favor of private respondent and denied the petitioners motion for
reconsideration.
Antonia Melodia Catolico was hired as a pharmacist by Waterous Drug
Corp. Yung Shin Pharmaceuticals Inc., a supplier of medicine, sold to
Waterous, thru Catolico, 10 bottles of Voren Tablets at P384 per unit.
However, previews P.O.s issued to YSP, Inc. showed that the price per bottle
is P320.00. Verification was made to YSP, Inc. to determine the discrepancy
and it was found that the cost per bottle was indeed overpriced. YSP, Inc.
Accounting Department (Ms. Estelita Reyes) confirmed that the difference
represents refund of jack-up price of ten bottles of Voren tablets per sales
invoice, which was paid to Ms. Catolico. Said check was sent in an
envelope addressed to Catolico. Catolico denied receiving the same.
However, Saldana, the clerk of Waterous Drug Corp. confirmed that she saw
an open envelope with a check amounting P640 payable to Catolico.
Waterous Drug Corp. ordered the termination of Catolico for acts of
dishonesty.
ISSUE:
Whether Waterous’ act of opening an envelope from one of its regular LOURDES T. MARQUEZ, in her capacity as Branch Manager, UNION BANK OF
suppliers is contrary to the injunction against unreasonable search and THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
seizure and a person’s right to privacy of communication. vs.
HONORABLE ANIANO A. DESIERTO, in his capacity as OMBUDSMAN, ANGEL
RULING: C. MAYOR-ALGO, JR., MARY ANN CORPUZ-MANALAC AND JOSE T. DE JESUS,
JR., in their capacity as Chairman and Members of the Panel, respectively,
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED and the challenged respondents.
decision and resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission dated 30
September 1993 and 2 December 1993, respectively, in NLRC-NCR CA No.
005160-93 are AFFIRMED, except as to its reason for upholding the Labor
Arbiters decision, viz., that the evidence against private respondent was FACTS:
inadmissible for having been obtained in violation of her constitutional rights
of privacy of communication and against unreasonable searches and In May 1998, petitioner Marquez received an Order from the Ombudsman
seizures which is hereby set aside. Aniano A. Desierto dated April 29, 1998, to produce several bank documents
for purposes of inspection in camera relative to various accounts maintained
As regards the constitutional violation upon which the NLRC anchored its at Union Bank of the Philippines (UBP) Julia Vargas Branch where petitioner
decision, we find no reason to revise the doctrine laid down in People vs. was the branch manager. The accounts to be inspected were involved in a
Marti that the Bill of Rights does not protect citizens from unreasonable case pending with the Ombudsman entitled, Fact-Finding and Intelligence
searches and seizures perpetrated by private individuals. It is not true, as Bureau (FFIB) v. Amado Lagdameo, et. al, for violation of RA 3019 Sec. 3 (e)
counsel for Catolico claims, that the citizens have no recourse against such and (g) relative to the Joint Venture Agreement between the Public Estates
assaults. On the contrary, and as said counsel admits, such an invasion gives Authority and AMARI. The Order was grounded on Section 15 of RA 6770
rise to both criminal and civil liabilities. (Ombudsman Act of 1989) which provides, among others, the following
powers, functions and duties of the Ombudsman, to wit:
Herein, there was no violation of the right of privacy of communication, and
Waterous was justified in opening an envelope from one of its regular (8) Administer oaths, issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum and take
suppliers as it could assume that the letter was a business communication in testimony in any investigation or inquiry, including the power to examine and
which it had an interest. However, Catolico was denied due process. have access to bank accounts and records;
Procedural due process requires that an employee be apprised of the (9) Punish for contempt in accordance with the Rules of Court and under
charge against him, given reasonable time to answer the charge, allowed the same procedure and with the same penalties provided therein.
amply opportunity to be heard and defend himself, and assisted by a
representative if the employee so desires. Ample opportunity connotes Clearly, the specific provision of R.A. 6770, a later legislation, modifies the law
every kind of assistance that management must accord the employee to on the Secrecy of Bank Deposits (R.A. 1405) and places the office of the
enable him to prepare adequately for his defense, including legal Ombudsman in the same footing as the courts of law in this regard.”
representation.
The basis of the Ombudsman in ordering an in camera inspection of the
Although Catolico was given an opportunity to explain her side, she was accounts was a trail of managers checks (MCs) purchased by one George
dismissed from the service in the memorandum of 5 March 1990 issued by Trivinio, a respondent in OMB-0-97-0411, pending with the office of the
her Supervisor after receipt of her letter and that of her counsel. No hearing Ombudsman. It appeared that Trivinio purchased on May 2 and 3, 1995, 51
was ever conducted after the issues were joined through said letters. The MCs for a total amount of P272.1 Million at Traders Royal Bank (TRB) UN Ave.
Supervisor's memorandum spoke of "evidence in [Waterous] possession," Branch. Out of the 51 MCs, eleven 11 MCs in the amount of P70.6M were
which were not, however, submitted. What the "evidence" other than the deposited and credited to an account maintained at the UBP.
sales invoice and the check were, only the Supervisor knew. Catolico's
dismissal then was grounded on mere suspicion, which in no case can justify On May 26, 1998, the FFIB panel met with petitioner Marquez and Atty. Fe B.
an employee's dismissal. Suspicion is not among the valid causes provided Macalino at the bank’s main office in Makati City, for the purpose of
by the Labor Code for the termination of employment; and even the allowing petitioner and Atty. Macalino to view the checks furnished by TRB.
dismissal of an employee for loss of trust and confidence must rest on After convincing themselves of the veracity of the checks, Atty. Macalino
substantial grounds and not on the employer's arbitrariness, whims, caprices, advised Ms. Marquez to comply with the order of the Ombudsman.
or suspicion. Besides, Catolico was not shown to be a managerial employee, Petitioner agreed to an in camera inspection set on June 3, 1998. However,
to which class of employees the term "trust and confidence" is restricted. on June 4, 1998, Marquez wrote the Ombudsman that the accounts in
Thus, the decision and resolution of the NLRC are affirmed except as to its question could not readily be identified since the checks were issued in cash
reason for upholding the Labor Arbiter's decision, viz., that the evidence or bearer, and asked for time to respond to the order. Marquez surmised
against Catolico was inadmissible for having been obtained in violation of that these accounts had long been dormant, hence were not covered by
her constitutional rights of privacy of communication and against the new account number generated by the UB system, thus sought to verify
unreasonable searches and seizures, which was set aside. from the Interbank records archives for the whereabouts of these accounts.
EN BANC The Ombudsman, responding to the request of Marquez for time to comply
with the order, stated that UBP-Julia Vargas, not Interbank, was the
G.R. No. 135882 June 27, 2001 depositary bank of the subject TRB MCs as shown at its dorsal portion and as
cleared by the Philippine Clearing House. Notwithstanding the fact that the
checks were payable to cash or bearer, the name of the depositor(s) could 3. By court order in bribery or dereliction of duty cases against public SUPREME COURT
easily be identified since the account numbers where said checks were officials Manila
deposited were identified in the order. 4. Deposit is subject of litigation;
5. Sec. 8, R. A. No. 3019, in cases of unexplained wealth as held in the case EN BANC
Even assuming that the accounts were already classified as dormant of PNB vs. Gancayco
accounts, the bank was still required to preserve the records pertaining to G.R. No. 127685 July 23, 1998
the accounts within a certain period of time as required by existing banking We rule that before an in camera inspection may be allowed, there must be
rules and regulations. a pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction. Further, the BLAS F. OPLE, petitioner,
account must be clearly identified, the inspection limited to the subject
On June 16, 1998, the Ombudsman issued an order directing Marquez to matter of the pending case before the court of competent jurisdiction. The vs.
produce the bank documents relative to the accounts in issue, stating that bank personnel and the account holder must be notified to be present
her persistent refusal to comply with the order is unjustified, was merely during the inspection, and such inspection may cover only the account RUBEN D. TORRES, ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, HECTOR VILLANUEVA, CIELITO
intended to delay the investigation of the case, constitutes disobedience of identified in the pending case. HABITO, ROBERT BARBERS, CARMENCITA REODICA, CESAR SARINO, RENATO
or resistance to a lawful order issued by the office and is punishable as VALENCIA, TOMAS P. AFRICA, HEAD OF THE NATIONAL COMPUTER CENTER
Indirect Contempt under Section 3(b) of R.A. 6770. In Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, we held that “Section 2 and CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondents.
of the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits, as amended, declares bank FACTS:
On July 10, 1998, Marquez together with UBP filed a petition for declaratory deposits to be “absolutely confidential” except:
relief, prohibition and injunction with the Makati RTC against the Petitioner Ople prays that we invalidate Administrative Order No. 308 entitled
Ombudsman allegedly because the Ombudsman and other persons acting (1) In an examination made in the course of a special or general "Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System" on
under his authority were continuously harassing her to produce the bank examination of a bank that is specifically authorized by the Monetary Board two important constitutional grounds, viz: one, it is a usurpation of the power
documents relative to the accounts in question. Moreover, on June 16, 1998, after being satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that a bank of Congress to legislate, and two, it impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry's
the Ombudsman issued another order stating that unless she appeared fraud or serious irregularity has been or is being committed and that it is protected zone of privacy. We grant the petition for the rights sought to be
before the FFIB with the documents requested, Marquez would be charged necessary to look into the deposit to establish such fraud or irregularity, vindicated by the petitioner need stronger barriers against further erosion.
with indirect contempt and obstruction of justice. (2) In an examination made by an independent auditor hired by the bank to
conduct its regular audit provided that the examination is for audit purposes A.O. No. 308 was published in four newspapers of general circulation on
The lower court denied petitioner’s prayer for a temporary restraining order only and the results thereof shall be for the exclusive use of the bank, January 22, 1997 and January 23, 1997. On January 24, 1997, petitioner filed
stating that since petitioner failed to show prima facie evidence that the (3) Upon written permission of the depositor, the instant petition against respondents, then Executive Secretary Ruben
subject matter of the investigation is outside the jurisdiction of the Office of (4) In cases of impeachment, Torres and the heads of the government agencies, who as members of the
the Ombudsman, no writ of injunction may be issued by the RTC to delay the (5) Upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee, are charged with the
investigation pursuant to Section 14 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989. of public officials, or implementation of A.O. No. 308. On April 8, 1997, we issued a temporary
(6) In cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of restraining order enjoining its implementation.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. the litigation”
ISSUE:
On August 21, 1998, petitioner received a copy of the motion to cite her for In the case at bar, there is yet no pending litigation before any court of
contempt. On August 31, 1998, petitioner filed with the Ombudsman an competent authority. What is existing is an investigation by the office of the Whether there is a violation of the Right to Privacy as enshrined in the Bill of
opposition to the motion to cite her in contempt on the ground that the filing
Ombudsman. In short, what the Office of the Ombudsman would wish to do Rights.
thereof was premature due to the petition pending in the lower court. is to fish for additional evidence to formally charge Amado Lagdameo, et.
Petitioner likewise reiterated that she had no intention to disobey the orders
al., with the Sandiganbayan. Clearly, there was no pending case in court HELD:
of the Ombudsman. However, she wanted to be clarified as to how she which would warrant the opening of the bank account for inspection.
would comply with the orders without her breaking any law, particularly RA The essence of privacy is the “right to be left alone.” The right to privacy as
1405. Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in our laws. The Civil Code such is accorded recognition independently of its identification with liberty;
provides that “every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy in itself, it is fully deserving of constitutional protection.
and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons” and punishes as
ISSUES: actionable torts several acts for meddling and prying into the privacy of The Court prescind from the premise that the right to privacy is a
another. It also holds a public officer or employee or any private individual fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, hence, it is the burden of
1. Whether or not Marquez may be cited for indirect contempt for her failure liable for damages for any violation of the rights and liberties of another government to show that A.O. No. 308 is justified by some compelling state
to produce the documents requested by the Ombudsman. person, and recognizes the privacy of letters and other private interest and that it is narrowly drawn. A.O. No. 308 is predicated on two
communications. The Revised Penal Code makes a crime of the violation of considerations:
2. Whether or not the order of the Ombudsman to have an in camera secrets by an officer, the revelation of trade and industrial secrets, and
inspection of the questioned account is allowed as an exception to the law trespass to dwelling. Invasion of privacy is an offense in special laws like the 1. The need to provides our citizens and foreigners with the facility to
on secrecy of bank deposits (RA 1405). Anti-Wiretapping Law, the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act, and the Intellectual conveniently transact business with basic service and social security
Property Code. providers and other government instrumentalities and ;
HELD:
Ombudsman is ordered to cease and desist from requiring Union Bank 2. The need to reduce, if not totally eradicate, fraudulent transactions and
An examination of the secrecy of bank deposits law (RA 1405) would reveal Manager Lourdes T. Marquez, or anyone in her place to comply with the misrepresentations by persons seeking basic services.
the following exceptions: order dated October 14, 1998, and similar orders.
It is debatable whether the interests are compelling enough to warrant the
1. Where the depositor consents in writing; issuance of the said order. The broadness, vagueness, and overbreadth of
2. Impeachment case; Republic of the Philippines A.O. No. 308 which if implemented will put our people’s right to privacy in
clear and present danger. In the case at bar, the threat comes from which
by issuing A.O. No. 308 pressures the people to surrender their privacy by
giving information about themselves on the pretext that it will facilitate
delivery of basic services.

Petition is granted. A.O. No. 308 is unconstitutional.