On Civil Suits for Privacy Violations
Article 26 of the Civil Code states:
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, prevention and other relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence;
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.
The Supreme Court elucidated that "residence" in Article 26(1) does not only apply to a private residence but any situation where the user has a reasonable expectation of privacy, thus:
Spouses Hing vs. Choachuy Sr. and Choachuy, G.R. No. 179736, 26 June 2013:
... an individual’s right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code should not be confined to his house or residence as it may extend to places where he has the right to exclude the public or deny them access. The phrase "prying into the privacy of another’s residence," therefore, covers places, locations, or even situations which an individual considers as private. And as long as his right is recognized by society, other individuals may not infringe on his right to privacy...
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.
The NPC does not have primary and exclusive jurisdiction over privacy cases, whether civil, administrative, or criminal.