7/25/2015

G.R.No.93833

TodayisSaturday,July25,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION

G.R.No.93833September28,1995
SOCORROD.RAMIREZ,petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALS,andESTERS.GARCIA,respondents.

KAPUNAN,J.:
A civil case damages was filed by petitioner Socorro D. Ramirez in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City
alleging that the private respondent, Ester S. Garcia, in a confrontation in the latter's office, allegedly vexed,
insultedandhumiliatedherina"hostileandfuriousmood"andinamanneroffensivetopetitioner'sdignityand
personality,"contrarytomorals,goodcustomsandpublicpolicy."1
In support of her claim, petitioner produced a verbatim transcript of the event and sought moral damages,
attorney'sfeesandotherexpensesoflitigationintheamountofP610,000.00,inadditiontocosts,interestsand
otherreliefsawardableatthetrialcourt'sdiscretion.Thetranscriptonwhichthecivilcasewasbasedwasculled
fromataperecordingoftheconfrontationmadebypetitioner.2Thetranscriptreadsasfollows:
PlaintiffSoccoroD.Ramirez(Chuchi)GoodAfternoonM'am.
DefendantEsterS.Garcia(ESG)Anobaangnangyarisa'yo,nakalimotkanakung
paanokanapuntarito,porkememberkana,magsumbongkakunganoanggagawinko
sa'yo.
CHUCHIKasi,nakadutyakonoon.
ESGTaposiniwanno.(Sic)
CHUCHIHindim'am,peroilanbesesnanilaakongbinalikan,sabingganoon
ESGItoand(sic)masasabikosa'yo,ayawkung(sic)magexplainka,kasihanggang
10:00 p.m., kinabukasan hindi ka na pumasok. Ngayon ako ang babalik sa 'yo, nag
aaplykasaStates,nagaaplykasareviewmo,kungkakailanganinangcertificationmo,
kalimutanmonakasihindikasaakinmakakahingi.
CHUCHIHindiM'am.Kasianganokotalaganoonicocontinuekoupto10:00p.m.
ESG Bastos ka, nakalimutan mo na kung paano ka pumasok dito sa hotel.
Magsumbong ka sa Union kung gusto mo. Nakalimutan mo na kung paano ka
nakapasok dito "Do you think that on your own makakapasok ka kung hindi ako.
Panunumbyoyannakita(Sinusumbatannakita).
CHUCHIItutuloykonaM'amsanaangdutyko.
ESGKasoilangbesesnaakongbinabalikandoonngmgano(sic)ko.
ESG Nakalimutan mo na ba kung paano ka pumasok sa hotel, kung on your own
meritalamkonamankunggaanoka"kabobo"mo.Maramiangnagaaplyalamkong
hindikapapasa.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/sep1995/gr_93833_1995.html

1/6

7/25/2015

G.R.No.93833

CHUCHIKumuhakamingexamnoon.
ESGOo,perohindikapapasa.
CHUCHIEh,bakitakoangnakuhaniDr.Tamayo
ESGKukuninkakasiako.
CHUCHIEh,disana
ESG Huwag mong ipagmalaki na may utak ka kasi wala kang utak. Akala mo ba
makukuhakaditokunghindiako.
CHUCHIMageexplainako.
ESG Huwag na, hindi ako magpapaexplain sa 'yo, makaalala ka kung paano ka
pumarito."Putangina"sasabisabihinmokamaganakngnanayattataymoangmga
magulangko.
ESGWalanaakongpakialam,dahilnanditokasaloob,nasalabaskapuwedekang
hindipumasok,okeyyannasaloobkaumaliskadoon.
CHUCHIKasiM'am,binbalikanakongmgatagaUnion.
ESG Nandiyan na rin ako, pero huwag mong kalimutan na hindi ka makakapasok
kunghindiako.Kunghindimokinikilalayanokeylangsaakin,dahiltaposkana.
CHUCHIInaanokom'amnautangnaloob.
ESG Huwag na lang, hindi mo utang na loob, kasi kung baga sa no, nilapastangan
moako.
CHUCHIPaanokitanilapastanganan?
ESGMabutipalumabaskana.Hindinaakomakikipagusapsa'yo.Lumabaskana.
Magsumbongka.3
Asaresultofpetitioner'srecordingoftheeventandallegingthatthesaidactofsecretlytapingtheconfrontation
wasillegal,privaterespondentfiledacriminalcasebeforetheRegionalTrialCourtofPasayCityforviolationof
Republic Act 4200, entitled "An Act to prohibit and penalize wire tapping and other related violations of private
communication,andotherpurposes."AninformationchargingpetitionerofviolationofthesaidAct,datedOctober
6,1988isquotedherewith:
INFORMATION
TheUndersignedAssistantCityFiscalAccussesSocorroD.RamirezofViolationofRepublicActNo.
4200,committedasfollows:
That on or about the 22nd day of February, 1988, in Pasay City Metro Manila,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this honorable court, the abovenamed
accused, Socorro D. Ramirez not being authorized by Ester S. Garcia to record the
latter's conversation with said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with the use of a tape recorder secretly record the said conversation and
thereaftercommunicateinwritingthecontentsofthesaidrecordingtootherperson.
Contrarytolaw.
PasayCity,MetroManila,September16,1988.
MARIANOM.CUNETA
Asst.CityFiscal
Uponarraignment,inlieuofaplea,petitionerfiledaMotiontoQuashtheInformationonthegroundthatthefacts
chargeddonotconstituteanoffense,particularlyaviolationofR.A.4200.InanorderMay3,1989,thetrialcourt
grantedtheMotiontoQuash,agreeingwithpetitionerthat1)thefactschargeddonotconstituteanoffenseunder
R.A.4200andthat2)theviolationpunishedbyR.A.4200referstoathetapingofacommunicationbyaperson
otherthanaparticipanttothecommunication.4
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/sep1995/gr_93833_1995.html

2/6

7/25/2015

G.R.No.93833

Fromthetrialcourt'sOrder,theprivaterespondentfiledaPetitionforReviewonCertiorariwiththisCourt,which
forthwithreferredthecasetotheCourtofAppealsinaResolution(bytheFirstDivision)ofJune19,1989.
On February 9, 1990, respondent Court of Appeals promulgated its assailed Decision declaring the trial court's
orderofMay3,1989nullandvoid,andholdingthat:
[T]heallegationssufficientlyconstituteanoffensepunishableunderSection1ofR.A.4200.Inthus
quashingtheinformationbasedonthegroundthatthefactsallegeddonotconstituteanoffense,the
respondentjudgeactedingraveabuseofdiscretioncorrectiblebycertiorari.5
Consequently, on February 21, 1990, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which respondent Court of
AppealsdeniedinitsResolution6datedJune19,1990.Hence,theinstantpetition.
Petitioner vigorously argues, as her "main and principal issue"7 that the applicable provision of Republic Act 4200
does not apply to the taping of a private conversation by one of the parties to the conversation. She contends that the
provision merely refers to the unauthorized taping of a private conversation by a party other than those involved in the
communication.8 In relation to this, petitioner avers that the substance or content of the conversation must be alleged in
the Information, otherwise the facts charged would not constitute a violation of R.A. 4200.9 Finally, petitioner agues that
R.A.4200penalizesthetapingofa"privatecommunication,"nota"privateconversation"andthatconsequently,heractof
secretlytapingherconversationwithprivaterespondentwasnotillegalunderthesaidact.10

Wedisagree.
First,legislativeintentisdeterminedprincipallyfromthelanguageofastatute.Wherethelanguageofastatuteis
clearandunambiguous,thelawisappliedaccordingtoitsexpressterms,andinterpretationwouldberesortedto
onlywherealiteralinterpretationwouldbeeitherimpossible11orabsurborwouldleadtoaninjustice.12
Section1ofR.A.4200entitled,"AnActtoProhibitandPenalizedWireTappingandOtherRelatedViolationsof
PrivateCommunicationandOtherPurposes,"provides:
Sec. 1. It shall be unlawfull for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or
arrangement,tosecretlyoverhear,intercept,orrecordsuchcommunicationorspokenwordbyusing
a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkietalkie or tape
recorder,orhoweverotherwisedescribed.
The aforestated provision clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by all the
parties to any private communication to secretly record such communication by means of a tape recorder. The
lawmakesnodistinctionastowhetherthepartysoughttobepenalizedbythestatuteoughttobeapartyother
than or different from those involved in the private communication. The statute's intent to penalize all persons
unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the use of the qualifier "any". Consequently, as
respondent Court of Appeals correctly concluded, "even a (person) privy to a communication who records his
private conversation with another without the knowledge of the latter (will) qualify as a violator" 13 under this
provisionofR.A.4200.

A perusal of the Senate Congressional Records, moreover, supports the respondent court's conclusion that in
enacting R.A. 4200 our lawmakers indeed contemplated to make illegal, unauthorized tape recording of private
conversationsorcommunicationstakeneitherbythepartiesthemselvesorbythirdpersons.Thus:
xxxxxxxxx
SenatorTaada:Thatqualifiedonly"overhear".
SenatorPadilla:Sothatwhenitisinterceptedorrecorded,theelementofsecrecywouldnotappear
tobematerial.Now,suppose,YourHonor,therecordingisnotmadebyallthepartiesbutbysome
partiesandinvolvednotcriminalcasesthatwouldbementionedundersection3butwouldcover,for
example civil cases or special proceedings whereby a recording is made not necessarily by all the
partiesbutperhapsbysomeinanefforttoshowtheintentofthepartiesbecausetheactuationofthe
parties prior, simultaneous even subsequent to the contract or the act may be indicative of their
intention. Suppose there is such a recording, would you say, Your Honor, that the intention is to
coveritwithinthepurviewofthisbilloroutside?
SenatorTaada:Thatiscoveredbythepurviewofthisbill,YourHonor.
SenatorPadilla:Eveniftherecordshouldbeusednotintheprosecutionofoffensebutasevidence
tobeusedinCivilCasesorspecialproceedings?
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/sep1995/gr_93833_1995.html

3/6

7/25/2015

G.R.No.93833

SenatorTaada:Thatisright.Thisisacompletebanontaperecordedconversationstakenwithout
theauthorizationofalltheparties.
SenatorPadilla:Now,wouldthatbereasonable,yourHonor?
SenatorTaada:Ibelieveitisreasonablebecauseitisnotsportingtorecordtheobservationofone
without his knowing it and then using it against him. It is not fair, it is not sportsmanlike. If the
purposeYourhonor,istorecordtheintentionoftheparties.Ibelievethatallthepartiesshouldknow
thattheobservationsarebeingrecorded.
SenatorPadilla:Thismightreducetheutilityofrecorders.
SenatorTaada:Wellno.Forexample,Iwastosaythatinmeetingsoftheboardofdirectorswhere
a tape recording is taken, there is no objection to this if all the parties know. It is but fair that the
people whose remarks and observations are being made should know that the observations are
beingrecorded.
SenatorPadilla:Now,Icanunderstand.
SenatorTaada:Thatiswhywhenwetakestatementsofpersons,wesay:"Pleasebeinformedthat
whateveryousayheremaybeusedagainstyou."Thatisfairnessandthatiswhatwedemand.Now,
in spite of that warning, he makes damaging statements against his own interest, well, he cannot
complain any more. But if you are going to take a recording of the observations and remarks of a
personwithouthimknowingthatitisbeingtapedorrecorded,withouthimknowingthatwhatisbeing
recordedmaybeusedagainsthim,Ithinkitisunfair.
xxxxxxxxx
(CongressionRecord,Vol.III,No.31,p.584,March12,1964)
SenatorDiokno:Doyouunderstand,Mr.Senator,thatunderSection1ofthebillasnowworded,ifa
partysecretlyrecordsapublicspeech,hewouldbepenalizedunderSection1?Becausethespeech
ispublic,buttherecordingisdonesecretly.
SenatorTaada:Well,thatparticularaspectisnotcontemplatedbythebill.Itisthecommunication
betweenonepersonandanotherpersonnotbetweenaspeakerandapublic.
xxxxxxxxx
(CongressionalRecord,Vol.III,No.33,p.626,March12,1964)
xxxxxxxxx
Theunambiguityoftheexpresswordsoftheprovision,takentogetherwiththeabovequoteddeliberationsfrom
the Congressional Record, therefore plainly supports the view held by the respondent court that the provision
seekstopenalizeeventhoseprivytotheprivatecommunications.Wherethelawmakesnodistinctions,onedoes
notdistinguish.
Second, the nature of the conversations is immaterial to a violation of the statute. The substance of the same
neednotbespecificallyallegedintheinformation.WhatR.A.4200penalizesaretheactsofsecretlyoverhearing,
intercepting or recording private communications by means of the devices enumerated therein. The mere
allegation that an individual made a secret recording of a private communication by means of a tape recorder
would suffice to constitute an offense under Section 1 of R.A. 4200. As the Solicitor General pointed out in his
COMMENTbeforetherespondentcourt:"Nowhere(inthesaidlaw)isitrequiredthatbeforeonecanberegarded
asaviolator,thenatureoftheconversation,aswellasitscommunicationtoathirdpersonshouldbeprofessed."
14

Finally,petitioner'scontentionthatthephrase"privatecommunication"inSection1ofR.A.4200doesnotinclude
"private conversations" narrows the ordinary meaning of the word "communication" to a point of absurdity. The
word communicate comes from the latin word communicare, meaning "to share or to impart." In its ordinary
signification, communication connotes the act of sharing or imparting signification, communication connotes the
actofsharingorimparting,asinaconversation,15orsignifiesthe"processbywhichmeaningsorthoughtsareshared
betweenindividualsthroughacommonsystemofsymbols(aslanguagesignsorgestures)" 16These definitions are broad
enoughtoincludeverbalornonverbal,writtenorexpressivecommunicationsof"meaningsorthoughts"whicharelikelyto
includetheemotionallychargedexchange,onFebruary22,1988,betweenpetitionerandprivaterespondent,intheprivacy
of the latter's office. Any doubts about the legislative body's meaning of the phrase "private communication" are,
furthermore, put to rest by the fact that the terms "conversation" and "communication" were interchangeably used by
SenatorTaadainhisExplanatoryNotetothebillquotedbelow:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/sep1995/gr_93833_1995.html

4/6

7/25/2015

G.R.No.93833

Ithasbeensaidthatinnocentpeoplehavenothingtofearfromtheirconversationsbeingoverheard.
Butthisstatementignorestheusualnatureofconversationsaswelltheundeniablefactthatmost,if
not all, civilized people have some aspects of their lives they do not wish to expose. Free
conversations are often characterized by exaggerations, obscenity, agreeable falsehoods, and the
expressionofantisocialdesiresofviewsnotintendedtobetakenseriously.Therighttotheprivacy
ofcommunication,amongothers,hasexpresslybeenassuredbyourConstitution.Needlesstostate
here, the framers of our Constitution must have recognized the nature of conversations between
individualsandthesignificanceofman'sspiritualnature,ofhisfeelingsandofhisintellect.Theymust
haveknownthatpartofthepleasuresandsatisfactionsoflifearetobefoundintheunaudited,and
free exchange of communication between individuals free from every unjustifiable intrusion by
whatevermeans.17
InGaananvs.IntermediateAppellateCourt,18acasewhichdealtwiththeissueoftelephonewiretapping,weheldthat
theuseofatelephoneextensionforthepurposeofoverhearingaprivateconversationwithoutauthorizationdidnotviolate
R.A. 4200 because a telephone extension devise was neither among those "device(s) or arrangement(s)" enumerated
therein, 19 following the principle that "penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the accused."20 The instant
case turns on a different note, because the applicable facts and circumstances pointing to a violation of R.A. 4200 suffer
fromnoambiguity,andthestatuteitselfexplicitlymentionstheunauthorized"recording"ofprivatecommunicationswiththe
useoftaperecordersasamongtheactspunishable.

WHEREFORE,becausethelaw,asappliedtothecaseatbenchisclearandunambiguousandleavesuswithno
discretion, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The decision appealed from is AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner.
SOORDERED.
Padilla,Davide,Jr.andBellosilloJJ.,concur.
Hermosisima,Jr.,J.,isonleave.
Footnotes
1DocketedasCivilCaseNo.88403,RegionalTrialCourt,Makati,Branch64.
2Rollo,p.48.
3Rollo,pp.4748.
4Rollo,p.9.
5Rollo,p.37.
6Rollo,p.99,Annex"H".
7Rollo,p.13.
8Id.
9Rollo,p.14.
10Rollo,p.1415.
11PacificOxygenandAcyteleneCo.vs.CentralBank37SCRA685(1971).
12Caselav.CourtofAppeals,35SCRA279(1970).
13Rollo,p.33.
14Rollo,p.67.
15WEBSTER'STHIRDNEWINTERNATIONALDICTIONARY460(1976).
16Id.
17CONGRESSIONALRECORD,Vol.III,No.31,at573(March10,1964).
18145SCRA112(1986).Seealso,SalcedoOrtanezv.CA235SCRA111(1994).
19Id.,at120.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/sep1995/gr_93833_1995.html

5/6

7/25/2015

G.R.No.93833

20Id.,at121.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/sep1995/gr_93833_1995.html

6/6