GAA v.

INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

FACTS
Edgardo A. Gaanan, a lawyer, was convicted for violating the Anti-Wiretapping Act (Republic Act No.
4200). The incident occurred when complainant Atty. Tito Pintor and his client Manuel Montebon were
discussing the terms for the withdrawal of a complaint for direct assault against Leonardo Laconico. Laconico
requested Gaanan, also a lawyer, to come to his office and advise him on the settlement of the case. During
the meeting, Laconico asked Gaanan to secretly listen to the telephone conversation between Pintor and
himself through an extension telephone. Gaanan, at Laconico's request, heard Pintor enumerate the conditions
for the withdrawal of the complaint. Subsequently, when Pintor received the money, he was arrested by agents
of the Philippine Constabulary. Gaanan executed an affidavit stating that he heard Pintor demand a certain
amount of money for the withdrawal of the case. Gaanan and Laconico were subsequently charged with
violating the Anti-Wiretapping Act.

ISSUE
Whether the telephone conversation between Pintor and Laconico was private in nature and whether an
extension telephone falls under the term "device or arrangement" as prohibited by the Anti-Wiretapping Act.

RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gaanan and acquitted him of the crime of violating the Anti-
Wiretapping Act. The Court determined that the telephone conversation between Pintor and Laconico was
indeed private in nature, as it was conducted between two individuals and not intended for public
dissemination. It was established that only one party, Pintor, gave Gaanan the authority to listen to the
conversation using an extension telephone.

Regarding the issue of whether an extension telephone falls under the term "device or arrangement"
prohibited by the Anti-Wiretapping Act, the Court held that an extension telephone should not be considered as
such. The Act specifically prohibits the use of devices or arrangements for secretly recording communications,
and an extension telephone does not fall under this category.

VALMONTE v. DE VILLA
G.R. No. 83988, September 29, 1989

FACTS
Petition filed by Ricardo C. Valmonte and the Union of Lawyers and Advocates for People's Rights
(ULAP) Checkpoints in Valenzuela, Metro Manila are being challenged as unconstitutional Checkpoints
causing fear and harassment among residents Cars and vehicles subjected to regular searches without a
search warrant or court order Checkpoints give military blanket authority to make searches and seizures
without legal basis

ISSUE
Whether the checkpoints in Valenzuela are constitutional Whether the checkpoints violate the right against
unreasonable searches and seizures

RULING
The petition is dismissed The constitutionality of the checkpoints is upheld Ratio: Checkpoints are a
security measure implemented by the National Capital Region District Command (NCRDC) to maintain peace
and order and protect the public Checkpoints are necessary during abnormal times, such as when there is an

1
insurgency movement in urban centers Right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right
that can only be invoked by those whose rights have been infringed.

ZULUETA v. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS
Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta and her husband, private respondent Alfredo Martin, are involved in a
dispute. On March 26, 1982, Cecilia entered her husband's clinic without his knowledge and consent. Cecilia
forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet in the clinic and took 157 documents and papers. The seized
documents included private correspondence between Dr. Martin and his alleged paramours, greeting cards,
cancelled checks, diaries, Dr. Martin's passport, and photographs. Cecilia seized these documents to use as
evidence in a case for legal separation and disqualification from the practice of medicine that she had filed
against her husband. Dr. Martin filed a case for recovery of the documents and papers and for damages
against Cecilia.

ISSUE
Whether the documents and papers seized by Cecilia from her husband's clinic without his knowledge and
consent should be returned to him and declared inadmissible in evidence.

RULING
The court ruled in favor of Dr. Martin. Cecilia was ordered to immediately return the documents and
papers to him. The court declared the documents and papers as properties of Dr. Martin. Cecilia was enjoined
from using them as evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.

WATEROUS DRUG CORP. v. NLRC

FACTS
Antonia Melodia Catolico filed a complaint against Waterous Drug Corporation for unfair labor practice,
illegal dismissal, and illegal suspension. Catolico was hired as a pharmacist by Waterous Drug Corporation in
August 1988. In January 1990, Catolico was accused of engaging in an anomalous transaction with a supplier,
Yung Shin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (YSP), resulting in an overcharge for medicine. Catolico denied receiving any
overcharge and claimed that the check she received from YSP was a Christmas gift. Subsequently, Catolico
was dismissed from her position.

ISSUE
Whether Catolico's dismissal and suspension were illegal, whether Waterous Drug Corporation violated
Catolico's constitutional rights, and whether Catolico was denied due process.

RULING
The court ruled in favor of Antonia Melodia Catolico. The Office of the Labor Arbiter found in favor of
Catolico, determining that her dismissal and suspension were illegal. This decision was primarily based on
Waterous Drug Corporation's failure to substantiate their allegations against Catolico and to conduct a proper
investigation into the matter. As a result, the Labor Arbiter awarded Catolico separation pay, back wages, and
additional compensation for her illegal suspension.

2
 DISINI v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
G.R. Nos. 203335, 203299, 203306, 203359, 203378, 203391, 203407, 203440, 203453, 203454, 203469,
203501, 203509, 203515 & 203518, February 18, 2014

FACTS
Several petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012. The petitioners included individuals, organizations, and lawmakers, and they brought
the case against various government officials. The main issue raised in the case is whether certain provisions
of the Cybercrime Prevention Act violate the constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression. The
petitioners argued that the provisions were overbroad and vague, and that they had a chilling effect on
protected expression.

ISSUE
Whether certain provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act violate the constitutional rights to freedom of
speech and expression.

RULING
The Supreme Court declared certain provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act unconstitutional while
upholding others. Provisions on illegal access, data interference, cyber-squatting, and child pornography were
found to be valid and necessary to protect against cybercrimes. Provisions on libel, unsolicited commercial
communications, and aiding or abetting cybercrimes were struck down as overbroad and vague. The Court's
decision was based on the principle that laws regulating the use of cyberspace must strike a balance between
protecting individuals from harm and preserving freedom of speech and expression.

VIVARES v. ST. THERESA’S COLLEGE

FACTS
The case involves a petition for a writ of habeas data filed by the parents of two minors against St.
Theresa's College (STC) and its officials. The minors' photos, taken at a beach party and uploaded on
Facebook, were accessed by a computer teacher at STC and shown to school officials. Subsequently, the
school imposed disciplinary actions on the minors, including barring them from participating in the graduation
ceremony. The parents argued that the school violated their children's right to privacy and filed a petition for a
writ of habeas data.

ISSUE
Whether or not a writ of habeas data should be issued given the alleged violation of the minors' right to privacy.

RULING
The court ruled that there was no violation of the minors' right to privacy and dismissed the petition. The
court explained that while the right to privacy is recognized and protected, it is not absolute and must be
balanced with other interests, such as the school's duty to enforce its policies and rules on discipline. In this
case, the court emphasized the concept of informational privacy and the importance of using privacy tools
available on social networking sites like Facebook.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that users have a responsibility to control their privacy settings and
exercise caution in their online activities. Given that the photos in question were uploaded on Facebook and
accessible to the minors' Facebook friends, the court found that the minors did not have a reasonable

3
expectation of privacy in their Facebook posts. Additionally, the photos could be shared or tagged by others,
further diminishing any expectation of privacy.

PEOPLE v. BUSTOS
G.R. No. L-12592, March 18, 1918

FACTS
In 1915, a group of citizens in the Province of Pampanga submitted a petition to the Executive
Secretary accusing a justice of the peace, Roman Punsalan, of malfeasance in office. The petition, signed by
thirty-four citizens and containing specific charges against Punsalan, was submitted through reputable
attorneys. Upon receiving the petition, the Executive Secretary referred it to the judge of first instance for
investigation and action. Following an investigation, the judge recommended to the Governor-General that
Punsalan be removed from office. However, Punsalan filed a motion for a new trial, which was granted by the
judge of first instance, resulting in Punsalan's acquittal of the charges. Subsequently, criminal action was
initiated against the petitioners, now the defendants, for libel. The trial court found thirty-two of the defendants
guilty and sentenced each of them to pay a nominal fine. The defendants appealed the decision.

ISSUE
Whether the defendants were guilty of libel against the justice of the peace.

RULING
The court ruled in favor of the defendants and acquitted them of the charges. The court found that the
prosecution failed to prove express malice on the part of the defendants. It was evident from the circumstances
that the defendants acted in good faith and with probable cause when they submitted the petition to the
Executive Secretary. The petition was not an act of mere caprice or malice, but rather a genuine attempt by
concerned citizens to address allegations of malfeasance in office by a public official. Additionally, the petition
was submitted through reputable attorneys, indicating a level of seriousness and responsibility in the
accusations made against the justice of the peace.

CHAVEZ v. GONZALES
G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008

FACTS
Petition filed against the Secretary of the Department of Justice and the National Telecommunications
Commission (NTC) for violating freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and the right to information.
Respondents issued warnings and orders against individuals and media organizations in possession of an
audiotape obtained through wiretapping. Petitioner argues that these actions restrict the freedoms of speech
and the press. Case involves the issuance of press releases and statements by the NTC and the Secretary of
Justice warning radio and television stations against airing taped conversations allegedly between the
President and a high-ranking official of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Petitioner filed a petition to
nullify these warnings, claiming that they constitute unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech.

ISSUE
Whether the warnings issued by the NTC and the Secretary of Justice constitute prior restraint on freedom of
speech.

4
RULING
The warnings issued by the NTC and the Secretary of Justice do constitute prior restraint on freedom of
speech. There can be no content-based prior restraint on protected expression. The NTC warning, which
threatens suspension or revocation of licenses for airing the tapes, is a classic form of prior restraint. The
warnings do not meet the strict scrutiny test, as there is no compelling state interest justifying the prior
restraint. The petition is granted, and the writs of certiorari and prohibition are issued to nullify the official
statements made by the respondents.