Prying into the privacy of anothers residence and meddling with or disturbing

Prying into the privacy of anothers residence and

This preview shows page 75 - 76 out of 93 pages.

and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons". "Prying into the privacy of another's residence" and "meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another" and " similar acts ", "though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief". Such article was violated when the corporation released an advertisement depicting Dr. Armil’s home to be that of another, without Dr. Aramil’s permission. Further, bad faith and negligence was evident as the corporation refused to publish a rectification or apology despite demands. The damages awarded are proper being enunciated by Articles 2200, 2208 and 2219 of the Civil Code. Article 2219 allows moral damages for acts mentioned in Article 26. Concepcion v. CA Gr No 120706 (January 31, 2000) Facts: Nestor Nicolas and family were leases of an apartment owned by Florence Conception located at San Joaquin, Pasig City. Nestor was engaged in the business of supplying office equipment, appliances and other fixtures to government agencies. He had convinced Florence to join in by inputting capital in exchange for an equal division of profits earned. The problem started when Florence’s deceased husband’s brother, Rodrigo Conception, suddenly confronted Nestor at his apartment on the second week of July 1985. He accused Nestor of being an adulterer, receiving P 100,000 from Florence to go to Baguio with his family, but secretly returning to Manila to have a tryst with Florence. Nestor even accompanied Rodrigo to ask the relatives whom the rumor allegedly came from, they however denied any knowledge. Rodrigo again accused Nestor of being an adulterer when they met Florence at the terrace of her residence when the two confronted her about the rumor. Both Nestor and Florence denied such. Rodrigo continued to harass Florence via phone, even saying that he would kill her if anything should happen to his mother. As a result Nestor felt ashamed and embarrassed to face his neighbors as they had heard or had been present during Rodrigo’s confrontation. His business was also in decline as Florence discontinued her capital input. Moreover, his wife, Allem started to distrust him and constant fighting ensued due to the rumor spread by Rodrigo. Nestor then demanded that Rodrigo make a public apology and pay damages. Rodrigo refused to do so and reasoned that he was only protecting his family’s reputation. The RTC and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Nestor, awarding him P 50,000 for moral damages, P25,000 for exemplary damages, P 10,000 for attorney’s fees and the cost of suit. Issue: Whether the awarding is with basis or not? Held: Yes, such decision is with legal and factual basis. First, Rodrigo’s claim that the awarding was without legal basis is bereft of merit. His actions of confronting Nestor in the latter’s apartment and hurling accusations that Nestor was an adulterer within view and hearing range of the public is indeed a violation of articles 26 and 2219 of the Civil Code as such an act is indeed a form of defamation and intrudes into the privacy of Nestor’s home and family life.
Image of page 75
Image of page 76

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 93 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture