Scribd
Upload
148 views1 page

Ramirez v. CA

1) Ramirez filed a civil case against a private respondent alleging humiliation during a confrontation, and secretly recorded the confrontation. 2) The private respondent then filed a criminal case against Ramirez for violating the Anti-Wiretapping Law (RA 4200) which prohibits recording private conversations without consent. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that RA 4200 indeed prohibits recording private conversations without the consent of all parties, even if one party is involved in the conversation. The intent of the law is to penalize any unauthorized recording of private communications.

Uploaded by

Shasharu Fei-fei Lim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
148 views1 page

Ramirez v. CA

1) Ramirez filed a civil case against a private respondent alleging humiliation during a confrontation, and secretly recorded the confrontation. 2) The private respondent then filed a criminal case against Ramirez for violating the Anti-Wiretapping Law (RA 4200) which prohibits recording private conversations without consent. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that RA 4200 indeed prohibits recording private conversations without the consent of all parties, even if one party is involved in the conversation. The intent of the law is to penalize any unauthorized recording of private communications.

Uploaded by

Shasharu Fei-fei Lim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Ramirez vs.

Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 93833, 28 September 1995

Facts: A civil case damages was filed by petitioner in the RTC alleging that the private respondent in a
confrontation in the latter’s office, allegedly vexed, insulted and humiliated her in a “hostile and furious
mood” and in a manner offensive to petitioner’s dignity and personality,” contrary to morals, good customs
and public policy.” In support of her claim, petitioner produced a verbatim transcript of the event and
sought moral damages, attorney’s fees and other expenses of litigation in the amount of P610,000.00, in
addition to costs, interests and other reliefs awardable at the trial court’s discretion. The transcript on
which the civil case was based was culled from a tape recording of the confrontation made by petitioner.

As a result of petitioner’s recording of the event and alleging that the said act of secretly taping the
confrontation was illegal, private respondent filed a criminal case before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay
City for violation of Republic Act 4200, entitled “An Act to prohibit and penalize wire tapping and other
related violations of private communication, and other purposes. Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the
Information on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, particularly a violation of
R.A. 4200. the RTC granted the Motion. From the RTC’s order, the private respondent filed a Petition for
Review on Certiorari with this Court, which forthwith referred the case to the CA. Respondent CA
declared the RTC’s order null and void, and holding that the allegations sufficiently constitute an offense
punishable under Section 1 of R.A. 4200. Petitioner filed a MR which the CA denied. Hence, the instant
petition.

Issue: Whether the recording of a “Private Conversation” without the consent of both of the party is a
violation of R.A. 4200.

Held: Yes, Section 1 of R.A. 4200 entitled, ” An Act to Prohibit and Penalized Wire Tapping and Other
Related Violations of Private Communication and Other Purposes,” provides that it shall be unlawful 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, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record
such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph
or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described. 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 law
makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a party
other 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. The unambiguity of the express words of the provision, therefore plainly supports the
view held by the respondent court that the provision seeks to penalize even those privy to the private
communications. Where the law makes no distinctions, one does not distinguish.

You might also like