RAMIREZ v.

CA

248 SCRA 590, September 28, 1995

FACTS:

➢ Petitioner Ramirez filed a civil lawsuit claiming that the private respondent, Garcia, verbally
attacked and degraded her in the workplace, displaying offensive behavior that goes against
accepted morals, good customs, and public policy.
➢ In order to substantiate her allegation, the petitioner presented an exact transcript of the incident
and requested compensation for moral damages.
➢ In retaliation, the private respondent lodged a criminal complaint, accusing the petitioner of
violating the Anti-Wiretapping Law by surreptitiously recording the confrontation.

ISSUE:

➢ W.O.N the act of secretly recording through tape constitutes an offense.

HELD:

➢ YES. RA 4200 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 does not make any distinction1.
➢ The constitutional protection to privacy of communication and correspondence includes
tangible and intangible objects. Tangible objects include letters, telegrams, signals, cables,
telephone, client’s files and other documents2.

RULING:

➢ WHEREFORE, because the law, as applied to the case at bench is clear and unambiguous and
leaves us with no discretion, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The decision appealed from
is AFFIRMED3.

1
Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, 248 SCRA 590, G.R. No. 93833 September 28, 1995
2
(Naval, 2022) citing Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, 248 SCRA 590, G.R. No. 93833 September 28, 1995
3
Supra note 1.