8/9/2019 Ramirez vs CA Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ramirez-vs-ca-digest 1/2

RAMIREZ vs CA

Facts:

A civil case damages was fled by petitioner Socorro Ramirez in the Quezon City RTC

alleging that the private respondent, ster !arcia, in a con"rontation in the latter#s

o$ce, allegedly ve%ed, insulted and humiliated her in a &hostile and "urious mood'

and in a manner o(ensive to petitioner#s dignity and personality,' contrary to

morals, good customs and public policy)'

*n support o" her claim, petitioner produced a verbatim transcript o" the event and

sought damages) The transcript on which the civil case was based was culled "rom a

tape recording o" the con"rontation made by petitioner)

As a result o" petitioner#s recording o" the event and alleging that the said act o" 

secretly taping the con"rontation was illegal, private respondent fled a criminal case

be"ore the +asay RTC "or violation o" Republic Act -.., entitled &An Act to prohibit

and penalize wire tapping and other related violations o" private communication,

and other purposes)'

+etitioner fled a /otion to Quash the *n"ormation, which the RTC later on granted,

on the ground that the "acts charged do not constitute an o(ense, particularly a

violation o" R)A) -..)

 The CA declared the RTC#s decision null and void and denied the petitioner#s /R,

hence the instant petition)

 Issue:

012 the Anti30iretapping Act applies in recordings by one o" the parties in the

conversation

 Held:

 Yes. Section 4 o" R)A) -.. entitled, ' An Act to +rohibit and +enalized 0ire Tapping

and 5ther Related 6iolations o" +rivate Communication and 5ther +urposes,'

provides:

Sec) 4) *t shall be unlaw"ul "or any person, not being authorized by all the parties to

any private communication or spo7en word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any

other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such

communication or spo7en word by using a device commonly 7nown as a dictaphone

or dictagraph or detectaphone or wal7ie3tal7ie or tape recorder, or however

otherwise described)

 The a"orestated provision clearly and une8uivocally ma7es it illegal "or any person,

not authorized by all the parties to any private communication to secretly record

such communication by means o" a tape recorder) The law ma7es no distinction as

to whether the party sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a party other

than or di(erent "rom those involved in the private communication) The statute#s

intent to penalize all persons unauthorized to ma7e such recording is underscored

by the use o" the 8ualifer &any') Conse8uently, as respondent Court o" Appeals

correctly concluded, &even a 9person privy to a communication who records his

private conversation with another without the 7nowledge o" the latter 9will 8uali"y

as a violator' under this provision o" R)A) -..)

A perusal o" the Senate Congressional Records, moreover, supports the respondent

court#s conclusion that in enacting R)A) -.. our lawma7ers indeed contemplated to

ma7e illegal, unauthorized tape recording o" private conversations or

communications ta7en either by the parties themselves or by third persons)

 The nature o" the conversations is immaterial to a violation o" the statute) The

substance o" the same need not be specifcally alleged in the in"ormation) 0hat R)A)

-.. penalizes are the acts o" secretly overhearing, intercepting or 

recording private communications by means o" the devices enumerated therein) The

mere allegation that an individual made a secret recording o" a private

communication by means o" a tape recorder would su$ce to constitute an o(ense

under Section 4 o" R)A) -..) As the Solicitor !eneral pointed out in his C5//2T

be"ore the respondent court: &2owhere 9in the said law is it re8uired that be"ore one

can be regarded as a violator, the nature o" the conversation, as well as its

communication to a third person should be pro"essed)'

+etitioner#s contention that the phrase &private communication' in Section 4 o" R)A)

-.. does not include &private conversations' narrows the ordinary meaning o" the

word &communication' to a point o" absurdity) The word communicate comes "rom

the latin word communicare, meaning &to share or to impart)' *n its ordinary

8/9/2019 Ramirez vs CA Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ramirez-vs-ca-digest 2/2

signifcation, communication connotes the act o" sharing or imparting signifcation,

communication connotes the act o" sharing or imparting, as in a conversation, or

signifes the &process by which meanings or thoughts are shared between

individuals through a common system o" symbols 9as language signs or gestures'

 These defnitions are broad enough to include verbal or non3verbal, written or

e%pressive communications o" &meanings or thoughts' which are li7ely to include

the emotionally3charged e%change, on ;ebruary --, 4<==, between petitioner and

private respondent, in the privacy o" the latter#s o$ce) Any doubts about the

legislative body#s meaning o" the phrase &private communication' are, "urthermore,

put to rest by the "act that the terms &conversation' and &communication' were

interchangeably used by Senator Ta>ada in his %planatory 2ote to the ?ill)