Article 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.

The Code of Commission rationalized the law by saying:

          “The sacredness of human personality is a concomitant of every plan for human amelioration. The touchstone of every system of laws, of the culture and civilization of every country, is how far it dignifies man. If in legislation, inadequate regard is observed for human life and safety; if the laws do not sufficiently forestall human suffering or do not try effectively to curb those factors or influences that wound the noblest sentiments; if the statues insufficiently protect persons from being unjustly humiliated; in short, if human personality is not properly exalted – then laws are indeed defective.”

Scope:

[1] Prying into the privacy of another’s residence – includes by implication respect for another’s name, picture or personality except insofar as is needed for publication of information and pictures of legit

imate news value.

[2] Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another – includes alienation of the affections of the husband or the wife.

[3] Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends – includes gossiping, and reliance on hearsay.

[4] Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition – includes criticism of one’s health or features without justifiable legal course.

In St. Louis Realty Corporation v Court of Appeals (133 SCRA 179);

St. Louis Realty Corporation vs. Court of Appeals and Conrado J. Aramil

G.R No. L-46061, November 14, 1984

Facts

          St Louis Realty caused to be published with the permission of Arcadio S. Arcadio (but without permission of Doctor Aramil) on the Sunday Times of December 15, 1968 an advertisement with the heading “WHERE THE HEART IS”. Below that heading was the photograph of the residence of Doctor Aramil and the Arcadio Family  and then below the photograph was the following write-up:

Home is where the heart is. And the hearts of MR. AND MRS. ARCADIO S. ARCADIO and their family have been captured by BROOKSIDE HILLS. They used to rent a small 2-bedroom house in a cramped neighborhood, sadly inadequate and unwholesome for the needs of a large family. They dream(ed) of a more pleasant place free from the din and dust of city life yet near all facilities. Plans took shape when they heard of Brookside Hills. With thrift and determination, they bought a lot and built their dream house.. for P31,000. The Arcadios are now part of the friendly, thriving community of Brookside Hills… a beautiful first-class subdivision planned for wholesome family living.

The same advertisement appeared in the Sunday times dated January 05, 1969. Doctor Aramil noticed the mistake and on the same date wrote St Louis realty a letter of protest for unauthorized use of his house for promotional gain and also damaging his prestige in the medical profession as numerous colleagues, medical students and friends’ uttered remarks purporting doubts to his professional and personal integrity.

The letter was received by Ernesto Magtoto, an officer of St. Louis Realty in charge of advertising. He stopped the publication of the advertisement and contacted Doctor Aramil to offer his apologies however, no rectification was published.

The trial court awarded Aramil P8,000 as actual damages, P20,000 as moral damages and P2,000 attorney’s fees as there was violation of Aramil’s right to privacy (Article 26).

St Louis Realty appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue

          Whether or not the case is covered by Article 26 of the civil code.

Held

          In this appeal, St Louis Realty contends that the Appellate Court ignored certain facts and resorted to surmises and conjectures. This contention is unwarranted. The Appellate Court adopted the facts found by the trial court. Those factual findings are binding on this court.

St. Louis Realty also contends that the decision is contrary to law and that the case was decided in a way not in conformity with the rulings of this Court. It argues that the case is not covered by Article 26 which provides that "every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons". "Prying into the privacy of another's residence" and "meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another" and "similar acts", "though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief". 

The damages fixed by Judge Leuterio are sanctioned by Articles 2200, 2208 and 2219 of the Civil Code. Article 2219 allows moral damages for acts and actions mentioned in Article 26. As lengthily explained by Justice Gatmaitan, the acts and omissions of the firm fan under Article 26. 

St. Louis Realty's employee was grossly negligent in mixing up the Aramil and Arcadio residences in a widely circulated publication like the Sunday times. To suit it's purpose, it never made any written apology and explanation of the mix-up. It just contented itself with a cavalier "rectification". 

Persons, who know the residence of Doctor Aramil, were confused by the distorted, lingering impression that he was renting his residence from Arcadio or that Arcadio had leased it from him. Either way, his private life was mistakenly and unnecessarily exposed. He suffered diminution of income and mental anguish.