Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaSECOND DIVISIONG.R. No. 179736 June 26, 2013SPOUSES BILL AND ICTORIA !ING, Petitioners, vs.ALE"ANDER C!OAC!U#, SR. $n% ALLAN C!OAC!U#, Respondents.D E C I S I O NDEL CASTILLO, J.:!heconcept of libert"#ouldbee$asculatedif it doesnot li%e#iseco$pel respect for one&spersonalit" as a uni'ue individual #hose clai$ to privac" and non(interference de$ands respect.)!his Petition for Revie# on Certiorari* under Rule +, of the Rules of Court assails the -ul" )., *../Decision0and the Septe$ber )), *../ Resolution+ of the Court of 1ppeals 2C13 in C1(4.R. CE5(SPNo. .)+/0.6actual 1ntecedentsOn 1u7ust *0, *..,, petitioner(spouses 5ill andVictoria 8in7 filed #ith the Re7ional!rial Court2R!C3 of Mandaue Cit" a Co$plaint, for In9unction and Da$a7es #ith pra"er for issuance of a :ritof Preli$inar"Mandator"In9unction;!e$porar"Restrainin7Order 2!RO3, doc%etedasCivil CaseM1N(,**0and raffled to5ranch*ot )?..(C@ that in 1pril*..,, 1ldo filed acase a7ainst petitioners for In9unction and Da$a7es #ith :rit of Preli$inar" In9unction;!RO,doc%eted as Civil CaseNo. M1N(,)*,@< that inthat case, 1ldoclai$ed that petitioners #ereconstructin7 a fence #ithout a valid per$it and that the said construction #ould destro" the #all of itsbuildin7, #hichis ad9acent topetitionersC propert"@? that thecourt, inthat case, denied1ldoCsapplication for preli$inar" in9unction for failure to substantiate its alle7ations@). that, in order to 7etevidence to support the said case, respondents on -une )0, *.., ille7all" set(up and installed on thebuildin7 of 1ldo 4ood"ear Servitec t#o video surveillance ca$eras facin7 petitionersC propert"@)) thatrespondents, throu7h their e$plo"ees and #ithout the consent of petitioners, also too% pictures ofpetitionersC on(7oin7construction@)* andthat theactsof respondentsviolatepetitionersC ri7ht toprivac".)0 !hus, petitionerspra"edthat respondentsbeorderedtore$ovethevideosurveillanceca$eras and en9oined fro$ conductin7 ille7al surveillance.)+In their 1ns#er #ith Counterclai$,), respondents clai$ed that the" did not install the videosurveillance ca$eras,)A nor did the" order their e$plo"ees to ta%e pictures of petitionersCconstruction.)/ !he" also clarified that the" are not the o#ners of 1ldo but are $ere stoc%holders.)>ED 1ND SE! 1SIDE !8EORDERSO6 !8ER!CD1!ED)DIN4 !81!!8EG :ERE ISSEED :I!8 4R1VE 15ESE O6 DISCRE!ION.II.!8EFFFC1COMMI!!ED1REVERSI5>EERROR:8ENI!RE>ED!81!PE!I!IONERSPOESES 8IN4 1RE NO! EN!I!>ED !O !8E :RI! O6 PRE>IMIN1RG IN-ENC!ION ON !8E4ROEND !81! !8ERE IS NO VIO>1!ION O6 !8EIR CONS!I!E!ION1> 1ND CIVI> RI48! !OPRIV1CG DESPI!E !8E 61C!E1> 6INDIN4S O6 !8E R!C, :8IC8 RESPONDEN!SC8O1C8EG 61I>ED !O RE6E!E, !81! !8E I>>E41>>G INS!1>>ED SERVEI>>1NCEC1MER1S O6 RESPONDEN!S C8O1C8HEIG :OE>D C1P!ERE !8E PRIV1!E 1C!IVI!IES O6PE!I!IONER SPOESES 8IN4, !8EIR C8I>DREN 1ND EMP>OGEES.III.!8EFFFC1COMMI!!ED1REVERSI5>EERROR:8ENI!RE>ED!81!SINCE!8EO:NER O6 !8E 5EI>DIN4 IS 1>DO DEVE>OPMEN! 1ND RESOERCES, INC. !8EN !O SEERESPONDEN!S C8O1C8EG CONS!I!E!ES 1 PERPOR!ED>G EN:1RR1N!ED PIERCIN4 O6!8E CORPOR1!E VEI>.IV.!8EFFFC1COMMI!!ED1REVERSI5>EERROR:8ENI!I4NORED!8ESERIOES6ORM1> DE6ICIENCIES O6 5O!8 !8E PE!I!ION 1ND !8E MO!ION 6OR RECONSIDER1!IOND1!ED), M1RC8*..A O6RESPONDEN!SC8O1C8EG1ND41VEFFF!8EMDEECOERSE 1ND CONSIDER1!ION.00Essentiall", the issues boil do#n to 2)3 #hether there is a violation of petitionersC ri7ht to privac", and2*3 #hether respondents are the proper parties to this suit.PetitionersC 1r7u$entsPetitioners insist that the" are entitled to the issuance of a :rit of Preli$inar" In9unction becauserespondentsC installation of a stationar" ca$era directl" facin7 petitionersC propert" and a revolvin7ca$era coverin7 a si7nificant portion of the sa$e propert" constitutes a violation of petitionersC ri7htto privac".0+ Petitioners cite 1rticle *A2)3 of the Civil Code, #hich en9oins persons fro$ pr"in7 into theprivate lives of others.0, 1lthou7h the said provision pertains to the privac" of anotherCs residence,petitioners opine that it includes business offices, citin7 Professor 1rturo M. !olentino.0A !hus, evenassu$in7ar7uendothat petitionersCpropert"isusedforbusiness, it isstill coveredb"thesaidprovision.0/1sto#hether respondentsaretheproper partiestoi$pleadinthiscase, petitionersclai$thatrespondents and 1ldo are one and the sa$e, and that respondents onl" #ant to hide behind 1ldoCscorporate fiction.0< !he" point out that if respondents are not the real o#ners of the buildin7, #herethe video surveillance ca$eras #ere installed, then the" had no business consentin7 to the ocularinspection conducted b" the court.0?RespondentsC 1r7u$entsRespondents, on the other hand, echo the rulin7 of the C1 that petitioners cannot invo%e their ri7htto privac" since the propert" involved is not used as a residence.+. Respondents $aintain that the"had nothin7 to do #ith the installation of the video surveillance ca$eras as these #ere installed b"1ldo, the re7istered o#ner of the buildin7,+) as additional securit" for its buildin7.+* 8ence, the" #ere#ron7full" i$pleaded in this case.+0Our Rulin7!he Petition is $eritorious.!he ri7ht to privac" is the ri7ht to be let alone.!he ri7ht to privac" is enshrined in our Constitution++ and in our la#s. It is defined as the ri7ht to befree fro$ un#arranted e=ploitation of oneCs person or fro$ intrusion into oneCs private activities insucha#a"astocausehu$iliationtoapersonCsordinar"sensibilities.+, It istheri7ht of anindividual to be free fro$ un#arranted publicit", or to live #ithout un#arranted interference b" thepublic in $atters in #hich the public is not necessaril" concerned.+A Si$pl" put, the ri7ht to privac" isthe ri7ht to be let alone.+/!he 5ill of Ri7hts 7uarantees the peopleCs ri7htto privac" and protects the$ a7ainstthe StateCsabuse of po#er. In this re7ard, the State reco7niJes the ri7ht of the people to be secure in theirhouses. No one, not even the State, e=cept in case of overridin7 social need and then onl" underthe strin7ent procedural safe7uards, can disturb the$ in the privac" of their ho$es.+