Ramirez v CA

G.R. No. 93833

Facts:

Petitioner filed a civil case for damages against private respondent which petitioner alleged that he was insulted and humiliated by private respondent 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. Petitioners claim was supported by a transcript of the conversation recorded by the petitioner during the said incident. Thus the private respondent filed criminal charges against petitioner because said recording was done through the violation of RA 4200 entitled "An Act to prohibit and penalize wire tapping and other related violations of private communication, and other purposes." But the trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner stating that the act of the petitioner does not constitute the compliant charge since the violation punished by R.A. 4200 refers to a the taping of a communication by a person other than a participant to the communication. The respondent appealed to the CA which reverse the ruling of the lower court and ruled in favor of the private respondent thus the petitioner appealed to the SC.

Issue:

Whether or not taping of communication by one of the parties in a conversation covered by RA 4200.

Ruling:

Yes, the court said the language of the assailed law is clear and unambiguous thus no interpretation is needed but the law should be applied. The court said that RA 4200 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" under this provision of R.A. 4200.  

.