Petitioner: Socorro D. Ramirez vs.

Respondents: Honorable Court of Appeals and Ester S. Garcia

G.R. no. 93833 September 28, 1995
Ponente: J. Kapunan

Case Summary:
Petitioner filed a civil case for moral damages against private respondent for insult and humiliation in a
confrontation. She presented a transcript of the confrontation which was based on a recording of the
conversation. Private Respondent filed a criminal case against petitioner for violating anti-wiretapping law
(RA 4200). After a series of appeals, the case came to SC with the main issue of whether or not petitioner
had violated Section 1 of RA 4200. The high court ruled that the law was clear and unequivocal that it
penalizes the acts of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording of private conversations; and makes
no distinction of the violator is a party to the conversation or not. The petition was denied.

Facts:
Socorro Ramirez filed a civil case for moral damages against private respondent Ester Garcia. Petitioner
alleged insult and humiliation in a confrontation in Garcia’s office. To support her claim, she provided a
verbatim transcript of the event. The transcript was based on a recording of the confrontation. Private
Respondent then filed a criminal case against Ramirex for violation of Section 1 of RA 4200 - Anti
Wiretapping (see full title in notes).

Ramirez filed a Motion to Quash Information with RTC on the ground that RA 4200 refers to taping of a
communication by a person other than a participant in the communication. RTC granted the motion.

Garcia filed a petition for review on Certiorari with SC. SC referred the case to CA.

CA declared RTC decision null and void on the grounds that the allegations sufficiently constitute an offense
under Section 1 of RA 4200. CA also ruled that the trial court judge acted in a grave abuse of discretion
(correctable by certiorari).

Ramirez filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the CA denied. Hence, this petition.

Issues:
1. W/N RA 4200 applies to the act of taping a private conversation by one of the parties to the
conversation? - YES
a. Legislative Intent is determined principally from the language of the stature - The law is
clear and unequivocal in that it makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by all parties
to any private conversation to secretly record such communication by means of a tape
recorder.
b. There is no distinction whether the accused is a party in the communication or a third party
c. Senate Congressional Records - lawmakers indeed contemplated to make illegal,
unauthorized tape recording of private conversations / communications taken by either
the parties themselves or by third persons (where the law makes no distinctions, one
does not distinguish)

2. W/N the nature / substance of the conversation must be alleged in the Information to constitute an
offense under Section of R 4200? - NO
 a. The mere allegation of a secret recording of a private conversation by means of tape
recorder would suffice to constitute an offense under Section 1 of RA 4200
b. OSG before the CA: “Nowhere (in the said law) is it required that before one can be
regarded as a violator, the nature of the conversation, as well as its communication to a
third person should be professed."

3. W/N the phrase “private communication” in Section 1 of RA 4200 does not include “private
conversations”? - NO
a. The definition of “communication” is broad enough to include verbal or non-verbal, written
or expressive communications of "meanings or thoughts" which are likely to include the
emotionally-charged exchange, on February 22, 1988, between petitioner and private
respondent, in the privacy of the latter's office.
b. Sen. Tanada’s Explanatory Note:
i. Free conversations are often characterized by exaggerations, obscenity,
agreeable falsehoods, and the expression of anti-social desires of views not
intended to be taken seriously. The right to the privacy of communication, among
others, has expressly been assured by our Constitution.
ii. The framers of our Constitution must have recognized the nature of
conversations between individuals and the significance of man's spiritual nature,
of his feelings and of his intellect. They must have known that part of the pleasures
and satisfactions of life are to be found in the unaudited, and free exchange of
communication between individuals — free from every unjustifiable intrusion by
whatever means

Ruling:
Petition DENIED. CA decision AFFIRMED.

Full Dispositive Text:

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 AFFIRMED. Costs
against petitioner.

Notes / Provisions:
Section 1, RA 4200 (AN ACT TO PROHIBIT AND PENALIZE WIRE TAPPING AND OTHER RELATED
VIOLATIONS OF THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.)

Section 1. 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 dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise
described: