CASE DIGEST ON AYER V. CAPULONG

For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com

case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests

CASE DIGEST ON AYER V. CAPULONG [160 S 865 (1988) En Banc] - Senator Enrile cannot object to his inclusion in the movie on the EDSA Revolution by invoking his right to privacy. "The right of privacy or "he right to be let alone" is not an absolute right. A limited intrusion into a person's privacy has long been regarded as permissible where that person is a public figure and the information sought to be elic¬ited from him or to be published about him constitutes matters of a public character. Succinctly put, the right of privacy cannot be invoked to resist publication and dissemination of matters of public interest. The right of priivacy of a "public figure" is necessarily narrower than that of an ordinary citizen."
As distinguished from Lagunzad v. Gonzales, which involved a film biography necessarily including at least his immediate family, the subject matter of the move in this case is one of public concern and does not relate to the individual or public life of Senator Enrile.



Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.

Art. 28. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machinations, or any other unjust, oppressive or high-handed method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers damages.


Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground.


For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com

case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests