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 Reuiring Business !stablishment All
"#er The $hilippines To %nstall &losed &ircuit Tele#ision '&&T() &ameras
%n Their $lace "f Business As Ameans To *eter &rime, And +or "ther
$urposes, is yet to be enacted. The said bill reuires notice of 
sur#eillance as pronounced in ection - of the said bill to wit
!& -. /otice of ur#eillance 0 The fact that sur#eillance
cameras ha#e been installed in an establishment shall be
made 1nown to the general public through a written notice
displayed in the entrance of the establishment.
Howe#er, as the same is yet to be enacted, it is still without any
binding legal eect. There are, howe#er, some principals of law which
can be applied. "ne is that property owners do owe their tenants and
others lawfully on the property some degree of reasonable protection.
 The le#el of duty has many #ariables.
 The Hotel has a duty to pro#ide reasonable security. Howe#er, it must
let people 1now that they are in an area where &&T( sur#eillance is
being carried out. The most eecti#e way of doing this is by using
prominently placed signs at the entrance to the &&T( 3one and
reinforcing this with further signs inside the area.
o per#asi#e has this technology been in our daily life that the manner
of its use was discussed and passed upon by the upreme &ourt in the
case of 4pouses Bill and (ictoria Hing #s Ale5ander &hoachuy r. and
Allan &hoachuy, .R. /o. 8797:6, dated ;une 26, 2<8:.
 The case in#ol#es two families that owned ad=oining properties in
 
premises. ?ater, the Hings began to construct a fence around their
property which was being used as a business o@ce.
 The &hoachuys went to court to demand that their neighbor be ordered
to desist from constructing the fence because it allegedly did not ha#e
a #alid permit and that it would destroy the wall of their shop that was
ad=acent to the fence.
 The court denied the petition for failure to substantiate the damages
claimed. marting from this defeat, the &hoachuys installed in their
shop two #ideo sur#eillance cameras facing their neighbors property
to record the construction of the fence.
 The Hings resented the installation of the cameras and, in#o1ing
in#asion of their right to pri#acy, as1ed the court to order the remo#al
of the &&T(s and illegal sur#eillance.
 The court ruled in their fa#or and ordered the &hoachuys to
4immediately remo#e the re#ol#ing camera that they installed at the
left side of their building o#erloo1ing the side of 'petitioners) lot and to
transfer and operate it elsewhere at the bac1
 The losing parties appealed the decision to the &ourt of Appeals and
got a fa#orable ruling.
%n#asion
 The appellate court based its action on Art. 26 of the &i#il &ode which
states that 4e#ery person shall respect the dignity, personality, pri#acy
and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following
and similar acts shall produce a cause of action for damages,
pre#ention and other reliefC 'l) $rying into the pri#acy of another
residence.
 
ince the property sub=ect of the contro#ersy is not used as a
residence, the court said no #iolation of pri#acy could be imputed on
the &hoachuys.
Dnfa3ed, the Hings went to the upreme &ourt to see1 the re#ersal of 
the latter ruling. They claimed that the &i#il &ode pro#ision which
prohibited people from prying into the pri#ate li#es of others also
included business o@ces.
%n support of this stand, they cited the comments of &i#il ?aw e5pert
former en. Arturo Tolentino who said the pro#ision 4does not mean,
howe#er, that only the residence is entitled to pri#acy, because the law
also applies to Esimilar acts. A business o@ce is entitled to the same
pri#acy when the public is e5cluded therefrom and only such
indi#iduals as are allowed to enter may come in.
 The tribunal agreed with Tolentinos comments on how a persons right
to pri#acy should be construed and understood.
%t stated that the prohibition on 4prying into the pri#acy of anothers
residence also co#ers places, locations or situations which an indi#idual
considers pri#ate, or 4in places where he has the right to e5clude the
public or deny them access.
Reasonableness
 To ensure the proper determination of that right to pri#acy, the tribunal
reiterated its earlier pronouncements on the 4reasonable e5pectation
of pri#acy test.
 The test consists of two uestionsC '8) whether, by his conduct, the
indi#idual has e5hibited an e5pectation of pri#acy and '2) this
e5pectation is one that society recogni3es as reasonable.
 
community norms and other practices. Thus, its determination must be
done on a caseGbyGcase basis depending on the factual circumstances
surrounding the case.
Applying the test to the situation at hand, the tribunal said that 4in this
day and age, #ideo sur#eillance cameras are installed practically
e#erywhere for the protection and safety of e#eryone.
4The installation of these cameras, howe#er, should not co#er places
where there is a reasonable e5pectation of pri#acy, unless the consent
of the indi#idual whose right to pri#acy would be aected, was
obtained.
4/or should those cameras be used to pry into the pri#acy of anothers
residence or business o@ce as it would be no dierent from
ea#esdropping, which is a crime under Republic Act /o. -2<< or the
AntiGiretapping ?aw.
Bottom line, the &&T(s the &hoachuys installed in their property that
faced directly the Hings property or co#ered a signiIcant portion of it,
without the latters consent, is a clear #iolation of their right to pri#acy
and should therefore be remo#ed.