ART.

26: EVERY PERSON SHALL RESPECT THE DIGNITY,

PERSONALITY, PRIVACY, AND PEACE OF MIND OF HIS NEIGHBORS
AND OTHER PERSONS
RE: DISTURBING SOCIAL OF MEDIA POSTS LAWYERS/LAW PROFESSORS

Syllabus topic: Civil Code Art 26 Keywords: Post socmed, derogatory comments, right
to privacy

DOCTRINE: Right to Privacy Doctrine

LAW/S OF THE CASE:

● Right to Privacy Two-Part Test
○ Whether by a person’s conduct, such individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy
○ This expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable.

Facts
● Lawyers and ​law professors in the ​Philippines made disturbing social media posts on ​Facebook
regarding judges.
● The posts targeted the judges' sexual orientation and alleged corruption.
● The ​Supreme Court issued a resolution requiring the individuals to explain why no administrative
charges should be filed against them.
● The individuals, namely Atty. Israel P. Calderon, Atty. Morgan Rosales Nicanor, Atty. Joseph Marion
Peña Navarrete, Atty. Noel V. Antay, Jr., and Atty. Ernesto A. Tabujara III, were ordered to show cause
for their posts.
● Atty. Antay Jr invoked his right to privacy insisting that his social media is locked and the contents
cannot be accessed by outsiders.

Issue:
● Wheter or not erring lawyers can invoke their right to privacy as a shield against administrative liability
(NO)

Held:

1. NO. The Supreme Court held that the lawyer’s right to privacy vis-a-vis online activities, not absolute.

● Citing the case of Belo-Henares v. Atty Guevarra the SC reiterated that although there are privacy
settings built in the social media platform facebook, the restriction of privacy of one’s Facebook post
does not guarantee absolute protection from prying eyes of another use.
● Under the circumstances therefore, the Supreme court held that the respondent’s claim of violation of
right to privacy is negated
● The court ruled that Atty. Antay Jr’s invocation of right to privacy was a mere allegation at best and
these cannot be considered as proof.

ART. 19-21: ABUSE OF THE RIGHT DOCTRINE

SPS. MELCHOR AND YOLANDA
SPS. DORAO versus BBB AND CCC, BY THEMSELVES AND AS NATURAL GUARDIANS OF
 THEIR MINOR DAUGHTER AAA

Syllabus topic: Civil Code Art 19-20-21 Keywords:

DOCTRINE: Art 21, 26

LAW/S OF THE CASE:

● Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

● Art. 26. 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.

Facts
● The facts of the case involve ​Spouses Melchor and ​Yolanda Dorao, who harassed, intimidated, and
spread false rumors about ​Spouses BBB and ​CCC and their minor daughter ​AAA.
● The Dorao Spouses disapproved of AAA's relationship with their son, Paul. They frequently visited BBB
and CCC's home, dropped snide remarks, and showed their dislike for AAA and her parents.
● The harassment and public humiliation caused distress to BBB, CCC, and minor daughter AAA.
● The lower courts held that moral damages must be awarded for the mental suffering caused to minor
daughter AAA as this falls under acts provided under Articles 21 and 26 of the Civil Code.
● Petitioners requested that the case be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Issue:
● of whether petitioners Spouses Dorao violated the right to the dignity, personality, privacy, and peace of
mind of respondents Spouses BBB and CCC and their minor daughter, AAA,

Held:

1. The Supreme court AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals and did not find any reason to overturn
the assailed decision and resolution.

● According the the decision of the Supreme Court, petitioners undoubtedly exposed minor daughter AAA
to public ridicule which caused the latter mental anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings,
and social humiliation. These acts are contrary to public policy and therefore Supreme Court affirmed
that petitioners are liable for damages pursuant to Articles 21 of the Civil Code.
● In the same vein, petitioner’s acts of spreading malicious rumors against minor daughter AAA and
publicly hurling defamatory accusations against respondents undoubtedly constitute the invasion of
respondent’s rights under Art 26 of the Civil Code.
● The Supreme court affirmed that the RTC is correct in awarding the appellee the moral damages
amounting to Php 30,000, PHP 20,000.00 as exemplary damages, PI-IP 30,000.00 as attorney's fees
and litigation expenses and a legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum on the foregoing amounts
● The Supreme court held that the prior findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals are final and
conclusive.