R.A. No. 4200: Anti-Wiretapping Law

Can a person privy or party to the conversation be liable to anti-wiretapping law when he records the conversation?

Yes. There is no distinction in the law whether the person who made the recording was privy to the conversation or not. The determining factor is that the recording was made without the consent and knowledge of all the parties.

Is the nature of the conversation material?

No. The substance of the conversation need not be specifically alleged in the information. What RA 4200 penalizes are the acts of secretly overhearing, intercepting or recording private communications by means of the devices enumerated in the law. The mere allegation that an individual made a secret recording of a private communication by means of a tape recorded would suffice to constitute an offense. (G.R. No. 93833)

What is private communication?

Private communication includes private conversation. In its ordinary signification, communication connotes the act of sharing or impairing, as in conversation, or signifies the process by which meanings or thoughts are shared between individuals through common system or symbols. These definitions are broad enough to include verbal or non-verbal, written or expressive communications of meanings or thoughts.

Is listening through an extension phone a violation?

No. There must be a physical interruption through wiretap or a deliberate installation of a device or arrangement for that purpose. An extension telephone is for ordinary official use.

CGRLAW & Associates

5F First Global Building, 122 Gamboa Street
corner Salcedo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City
Tel. No. (+63 2) 985 4322
email: claude.requino@cgrlaw.ph

            info@cgrlaw.ph

website: http://www.cgrlaw.ph

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. You are hereby notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

Management Prerogative to Transfer Employee Security Guards

Is transfer of a security guard equivalent dismissal?

No. In cases involving security guards, a relief and transfer order in itself does not sever employment relationship between a security guard and his agency. An employee has the right to security of tenure, but this does not give him such a vested right in his position as would deprive the company of its prerogative to change his assignment or transfer him where his service, as security guard, will be most beneficial to the client. (G.R. No. 160940)

Can the agency transfer its security guard?

Yes. The right to transfer employees from one office to another- provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits and other privileges- is judicially recognized as a prerogative inherent in the employer's right to effectively control and manage the enterprise. (G.R. No. 118159)

To repeat for emphasis, the security guard's right to security of tenure does not give him a vested right to the position as would deprive the company of its prerogative to change the assignment of, or transfer the security guard to, a station where his services would be most beneficial to the client. Indeed, an employer has the right to transfer or assign its employee from one office to area of operation to another, or in pursuit of its legitimate business interest, provided there is no diminution in rank or diminution of salary, benefits, and other privileges, and the transfer is not motivated by discrimination or bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment ot demotion without sufficient cause.

Is the lapse of 6 month off-detailed period equivalent to constructive illegal dismissal?

No. It is manifestly unfair and unacceptable to immediately declare the mere lapse of six month period of floating status as a case of constructive dismissal, without looking into the peculiar circumstances hat resulted in he security guard's failure to assume another post. (G.R. No. 198538)