E. Period of Prescription for Reconveyance of Real Property Based on Implied Trust Carantes v. CA, 76 SCRA 514
digestFull description
civil codeFull description
Hizon VS CA digest
okFull description
ashdgaj
Fgu Insurance vs. CA digest
kkFull description
FullFull description
Property Case Digest (recit ready)
obliconFull description
.
case digestFull description
case
Full description
digestFull description
consti
Atok vs Ca credit ransaction
Case Digests: Statutory Construction Socorro Ramirez vs Court of Appeals 248 SCRA 590 ! R! "o! 9#8## Septem$er 25 %995 &acts: A civil case for 'amages (as )le' $y petitioner Socorro Ramirez in t*e R+ R+C C of ,uezon City alleging t*at t*e private pr ivate respon'ent- .ster arcia- in a confrontation in t*e latter/s oce- allege'ly ve1e'- insulte' an' *umiliate' *er in a *ostile an' furious moo'3 an' in a manner oensive to petitioner/s 'ignity an' personalitycontrary to morals- goo' customs an' pu$lic policy!3 policy!3 n support of *er claim- petitioner pro'uce' a ver$atim transcript of t*e event! +*e transcript on (*ic* t*e civil case (as $ase' (as culle' from a tape recor'ing of t*e confrontation ma'e $y $ y petitioner! As a result of petitioner/s recor'ing of t*e event an' alleging t*at t*e sai' act of secretly taping t*e confrontation (as illegal- private respon'ent )le' a criminal case $efore t*e R+C of 6asay City for violation of RA 4200- entitle' An Act to 6ro*i$it an' 6enalize 7iretapping 7iretapping an' t*er Relate' iolations of 6rivate Communication- an' t*er 6urposes!3 pon arraignment- in lieu of a plea- petitioner )le' a ;otion to ,uas* t*e nformation on t*e groun' t*at t*e facts c*arge' 'o not constitute an oense particularly a violation of RA 4200! +*e trial court grante' t*e ;otion to ,uas*agreeing (it* petitioner! petitioner! &rom t*e trial court/s r'er- t*e private respon'ent )le' a 6etition for Revie( on Certiorari (it* t*is Court- (*ic* fort*(it* referre' t*e case to t*e CA! Respon'ent Court of Appeals promulgate' its assaile' Decision 'eclaring t*e trial court/s or'er null an' voi'! ssue: 7<" RA 4200 applies to taping of a private conversation $y one of t*e parties to a conversation! =el': >egislative intent is 'etermine' principally from t*e language of a statute! 7*ere t*e language of a statute is clear an' unam$iguous- t*e la( is applie' accor'ing to
its e1press terms- an' interpretation (oul' $e resorte' to only (*ere a literal interpretation (oul' $e eit*er impossi$le or a$sur' or (oul' lea' to an in?ustice! Section % of RA 4200 clearly an' une@uivocally maes it illegal for any person- not aut*orize' $y all parties to any private communication- to secretly recor' suc* communication $y means of a tape recor'er! +*e la( maes no 'istinction as to (*et*er t*e party soug*t to $e penalize' $y t*e statute oug*t to $e a party ot*er t*an or 'ierent from t*ose involve' in t*e private communication! +*e statute/s intent to penalize all persons unaut*orize' to mae suc* recor'ing is un'erscore' $y t*e use of @uali)er any!3 Conse@uently- as respon'ent CA correctly conclu'e'even a Bperson privy to a communication (*o recor's *is private conversation (it* anot*er (it*out t*e no(le'ge of t*e latter B(ill @ualify as a violator un'er t*is provision of RA 4200! +*e unam$iguity of t*e e1press (or's of t*e provision t*erefore plainly supports t*e vie( *el' $y t*e respon'ent court t*at t*e provision sees to penalize even t*ose privy to t*e private communications! 7*ere t*e la( maes no 'istinctions- one 'oes not 'istinguis*! Stat Con 6rinciple: >egislative intent is 'etermine' principally from t*e language of t*e statute! >egal ;a1ims: er$a >egis Bt*e statute must $e interprete' literally if t*e language of t*e statute is plain an' free from am$iguity
&AC+S: 6etitioner Socorro D! Ramirez )le' a civil case in t*e Regional +rial Court of ,uezon City alleging t*at t*e private respon'ent- .ster S! arcia- in a confrontation in t*e latterFs oce- allege'ly ve1e'- insulte' an' *umiliate' *er in a G*ostile an' furious moo'G an' in a manner oensive to *is 'ignity an' personality- contrary to moralsgoo' customs an' pu$lic policy! n support of *er claim- petitioner pro'uce' a ver$atim transcript of t*e event an' soug*t moral 'amages- attorneyFs fees an' ot*er e1penses of litigation in t*e amount of 6H%0-000!00- in a''ition to costs- interests an' ot*er reliefs a(ar'a$le at t*e trial courtFs 'iscretion! +*e transcript on (*ic* t*e civil case (as $ase' (as culle' from a tape recor'ing of t*e confrontation ma'e $y petitioner! As a result of petitionerFs recor'ing of t*e event an' alleging t*at t*e sai' act of secretly taping t*e confrontation (as illegal- private respon'ent )le' a criminal case $efore t*e Regional +rial Court of 6asay City for violation of Repu$lic Act 4200entitle' GAn Act to pro*i$it an' penalize (ire tapping an' ot*er relate' violations of private communication- an' ot*er purposes!
SS.: 7*et*er or not t*e applica$le provision of Repu$lic Act 4200 'oes not apply to t*e taping of a private conversation $y one of t*e parties to t*e conversation!
R>": "o! Section % of t*e Repu$lic Act 4200 states t*at it s*all $e unla(ful for any person- not $eing aut*orize' $y all t*e parties to any private communication or spoen (or'- to tap any (ire or ca$le- or $y using any ot*er 'evice or arrangementto secretly over*ear- intercept- or recor' suc* communication or spoen (or' $y using a 'evice commonly no(n as a 'ictap*one or 'ictagrap* or 'etectap*one or (alieItalie or tape recor'er- or *o(ever ot*er(ise 'escri$e'!
+*e la( is clear an' unam$iguous! 7*ere t*e la( maes no 'istinctions- one 'oes not 'istinguis*! +*e Supreme Court arme' t*e appeale' 'ecision! +*e instant petition is *ere$y D.".D! Cost against petitioner! &acts:
A civil case 'amages (as )le' $y petitioner Socorro Ramirez in t*e ,uezon City R+C alleging t*at t*e private respon'ent- .ster arcia- in a confrontation in t*e latter/s oce- allege'ly ve1e'- insulte' an' *umiliate' *er in a *ostile an' furious moo'3 an' in a manner oensive to petitioner/s 'ignity an' personality-3 contrary to morals- goo' customs an' pu$lic policy!3
n support of *er claim- petitioner pro'uce' a ver$atim transcript of t*e event an' soug*t 'amages! +*e transcript on (*ic* t*e civil case (as $ase' (as culle' from a tape recor'ing of t*e confrontation ma'e $y petitioner!
As a result of petitioner/s recor'ing of t*e event an' alleging t*at t*e sai' act of secretly taping t*e confrontation (as illegal- private respon'ent )le' a criminal case $efore t*e 6asay R+C for violation of Repu$lic Act 4200- entitle' An Act to pro*i$it an' penalize (ire tapping an' ot*er relate' violations of private communicationan' ot*er purposes!3
6etitioner )le' a ;otion to ,uas* t*e nformation- (*ic* t*e R+C later on grante'on t*e groun' t*at t*e facts c*arge' 'o not constitute an oense- particularly a violation of R!A! 4200!
7<" t*e AntiI7iretapping Act applies in recor'ings $y one of t*e parties in t*e conversation
=el':
Jes! Section % of R!A! 4200 entitle'- 3 An Act to 6ro*i$it an' 6enalize' 7ire +apping an' t*er Relate' iolations of 6rivate Communication an' t*er 6urposes-3 provi'es:
Sec! %! t s*all $e unla(ful for any person- not $eing aut*orize' $y all t*e parties to any private communication or spoen (or'- to tap any (ire or ca$le- or $y using any ot*er 'evice or arrangement- to secretly over*ear- intercept- or recor' suc* communication or spoen (or' $y using a 'evice commonly no(n as a 'ictap*one or 'ictagrap* or 'etectap*one or (alieItalie or tape recor'er- or *o(ever ot*er(ise 'escri$e'!
+*e aforestate' provision clearly an' une@uivocally maes it illegal for any personnot aut*orize' $y all t*e parties to any private communication to secretly recor' suc* communication $y means of a tape recor'er! +*e la( maes no 'istinction as to (*et*er t*e party soug*t to $e penalize' $y t*e statute oug*t to $e a party ot*er t*an or 'ierent from t*ose involve' in t*e private communication! +*e statute/s intent to penalize all persons unaut*orize' to mae suc* recor'ing is un'erscore' $y t*e use of t*e @uali)er any3! Conse@uently- as respon'ent Court of Appeals correctly conclu'e'- even a Bperson privy to a communication (*o recor's *is private conversation (it* anot*er (it*out t*e no(le'ge of t*e latter B(ill @ualify as a violator3 un'er t*is provision of R!A! 4200!
A perusal of t*e Senate Congressional Recor's- moreover- supports t*e respon'ent court/s conclusion t*at in enacting R!A! 4200 our la(maers in'ee' contemplate' to mae illegal- unaut*orize' tape recor'ing of private conversations or communications taen eit*er $y t*e parties t*emselves or $y t*ir' persons!
+*e nature of t*e conversations is immaterial to a violation of t*e statute! +*e su$stance of t*e same nee' not $e speci)cally allege' in t*e information! 7*at R!A! 4200 penalizes are t*e acts of secretly over*earing- intercepting or recor'ing private communications $y means of t*e 'evices enumerate' t*erein! +*e mere allegation t*at an in'ivi'ual ma'e a secret recor'ing of a private communication $y means of a tape recor'er (oul' suce to constitute an oense un'er Section % of R!A! 4200! As t*e Solicitor eneral pointe' out in *is C;;."+ $efore t*e respon'ent court: "o(*ere Bin t*e sai' la( is it re@uire' t*at $efore one can $e regar'e' as a violator- t*e nature of t*e conversation- as (ell as its communication to a t*ir' person s*oul' $e professe'!3
6etitioner/s contention t*at t*e p*rase private communication3 in Section % of R!A! 4200 'oes not inclu'e private conversations3 narro(s t*e or'inary meaning of t*e (or' communication3 to a point of a$sur'ity! +*e (or' communicate comes from t*e latin (or' communicare- meaning to s*are or to impart!3 n its or'inary signi)cation- communication connotes t*e act of s*aring or imparting signi)cationcommunication connotes t*e act of s*aring or imparting- as in a conversation- or signi)es t*e process $y (*ic* meanings or t*oug*ts are s*are' $et(een in'ivi'uals t*roug* a common system of sym$ols Bas language signs or gestures3
+*ese 'e)nitions are $roa' enoug* to inclu'e ver$al or nonIver$al- (ritten or e1pressive communications of meanings or t*oug*ts3 (*ic* are liely to inclu'e t*e emotionallyIc*arge' e1c*ange- on &e$ruary 22- %988- $et(een petitioner an' private respon'ent- in t*e privacy of t*e latter/s oce! Any 'ou$ts a$out t*e legislative $o'y/s meaning of t*e p*rase private communication3 are- furt*ermoreput to rest $y t*e fact t*at t*e terms conversation3 an' communication3 (ere interc*angea$ly use' $y Senator +aKa'a in *is .1planatory "ote to t*e Eill!
Rule involve': $i le1 non 'istinguit nec nos 'istinguere 'e$emos! 7*ere t*e la( maes no 'istinctions- one 'oes not 'istinguis*! ssue: Does t*e antiI(iretapping la(- RA 4200- allo( parties to a conversation to tape it (it*out t*e consent of all t*ose involve'L 7*at (as construe': +*e (or' any3 in Sec! % of RA 4200: t s*all $e unla(ful for A"J person- not $eing aut*orize' $y all t*e parties to any private communication or spoen (or'- to tap any (ire or ca$le- or $y using any ot*er 'evice or arrangement- to secretly over*ear- intercept- or recor' suc* communication or spoen (or' $y using a 'evice commonly no(n as a Dictap*one or 'ictagrap* or 'etectap*one or (alieI talie or tape recor'er- or *o(ever ot*er(ise 'escri$e'! &acts of t*e case: Soccoro Ramirez (as scol'e' $y .ster arcia insi'e arcia/s oce! Ramirez tape' t*e conversation an' later )le' c*arges against arcia for insulting an' *umiliating *er- using as evi'ence t*e transcript of t*e conversation$ase' on t*e tape recor'ing! arcia )le' criminal c*arges against Ramirez for violating t*e antiI(ire tapping act$ecause it (as 'one (it*out *er no(le'ge an' consent! Ramirez claime' t*at (*at t*e la( for$i's is for ot*er parties- (*o are not part of t*e conversation- to recor' it using t*e instruments enumerate' in t*e la( Bt*ere (as an earlier case t*at (as 'ismisse' $ecause t*e instrument use' (as not mentione' in t*e la(! +*e trial court rule' in favor of Ramirez- granting a motion to @uas* on t*e groun' t*at t*e facts c*arge' 'o not constitute an oense- $ut t*e Court of Appeals reverse' it! Ratio: &irst- t*e court note' t*at t*e provision maes it clear t*at it is illegal for any person to secretly recor' a conversation- unless aut*orize' $y all parties involve'! +*e la( maes no 'istinction as to (*et*er t*e party soug*t to $e penalize' $y t*e statute oug*t to $e a party ot*er t*an or 'ierent from t*ose involve' in t*e private communication!3 +*e congressional recor's also s*o(e' t*at t*e intent (as t*at permission must $e soug*t from all parties in t*e conversation! +*is is a complete $an on tape recor'e' conversations taen (it*out t*e aut*orization of all t*e parties-3 Sen! +ana'a sai' 'uring t*e 'eli$erations! +*e provision sees to penalize even t*ose privy to t*e private communications! 7*ere t*e la( maes no 'istinctions- one 'oes not 'istinguis*!3 Decision: 6etition 'enie'! Decision of CA arme'! Costs against Ramirez!
