G.R. No. 155076 – LUIS MARCOS P. LAUREL versus HON. ZEUS C. ABROGAR, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial
Court, Makati City, Branch 150, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and PHILIPPINE LONG
DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY
Promulgated:
January 13, 2009
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
SEPARATE
OPINION
CORONA, J.:
The
bone of contention in this case is: who owns the telephone calls that we make? If respondent Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company (PLDT) can claim ownership over them, then petitioner Luis Marcos
P. Laurel (Laurel) can be charged with theft of such telephone calls under
Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
If PLDT does not own them, then the crime of theft was not committed and
Laurel cannot be charged with this crime.
One view is that PLDT owns the telephone
calls because it is responsible for creating such calls. The opposing view is that it is the caller
who owns the phone calls and PLDT merely encodes and transmits them.
The question of whether PLDT creates
the phone calls or merely encodes and transmits them is a question of
fact that can be answered by science. I
agree with Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago that, while telephone calls “take
the form of electrical energy, it cannot be said that such [telephone] calls
were personal properties belonging to PLDT since the latter could not have
acquired ownership over such calls. PLDT
merely encodes, augments, enhances, decodes and transmits said calls using its
complex infrastructure and facilites.”
In my view,
it is essential to differentiate between the conversation of a caller and recipient of the call, and the telephone service that made the call possible.
Undoubtedly, any conversation between or among individuals is theirs
alone. For example, if two children use
two empty cans and a string as a makeshift play phone, they themselves create
their “phone call.” However, if individuals separated by long distances use the
telephone and have a conversation through the telephone lines of the PLDT, then
the latter owns the service which made possible the resulting call. The conversation, however, remains protected
by our privacy laws.
Accordingly, I
vote to GRANT the motion for
reconsideration.
Associate Justice