Unintentional overhearing of phone conversation not necessarily wiretapping

Dear PAO,

My husband and I are renting a dorm-type house and we are on the second floor. The owner has
provided a telephone extension on our floor so that we can make and take calls from there, rather than
having to go to the sala downstairs. The other day, I picked up the telephone extension on our floor to
make a call to the office where I work. I did not know initially that someone else was using the telephone
line. But it so happened that another tenant was using the phone then, and I unintentionally heard a part
of his conversation with a lady on the other end of the line. I hung up the phone and waited until he was
done.

To my shock, he went to our floor and started yelling at me about why I was trying to eavesdrop on their
conversation. He even threatened to sue me for wiretapping because I was using the telephone extension
instead of the main telephone. Is this really possible? To be honest, I am not certain as to what they were
talking about, and I do not even care what it was. Maybe it was about some sensitive matter, thus, he
over-reacted. I just want to know if I will be liable for anything. It just does not seem fair to me because I
did not intend to do any wrong on anyone. Please advise me on this matter.

Jan

Dear Jan,

One of the acts penalized under Republic Act (RA) 4200, or the Anti-Wiretapping Act, is the
unauthorized tapping of private communication or spoken word. As specifically mentioned under the
law:

Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement,
to secretly overhear, intercept or record such communication or spoken word by using a device
commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or
however otherwise described: x x x

Section 2. Any person who willfully or knowingly does or who shall aid, permit or cause to be done any
of the acts declared to be unlawful in the preceding section or who violates the provisions of the
following section or of any order issued thereunder, or aids, permits or causes such violation shall, upon
conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months or more than six years
and with the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification from public office if the offender
be a public official at the time of the commission of the offense, and, if the offender is an alien he shall
be subject to deportation proceedings.

In the situation that you have presented, there is no question that you were unwelcome in the
telephone conversation, which your co-tenant was having, as you did not secure prior authorization to
listen to whatever they were discussing about.
Nonetheless, we do not think that you may be held liable for violation of the provisions of RA No. 4200.
First of all, it does not appear that you willfully or knowingly eavesdropped on their conversation. As
you have mentioned, you were not aware in the beginning that someone else was using the telephone
line and you then unintentionally heard a part of their conversation when you picked up the telephone
extension on your floor. Second, it cannot be concluded that you tapped any wire or cable, or used any
other device that is intended to surreptitiously intercept the conversation they were having. As
enunciated by our Supreme Court in the case of Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court and People of
the Philippines (G.R. No. L-69809, October 16, 1986; ponente, former Associate Justice Hugo Gutierrez
Jr.):

x x x An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone, dictagraph or the
other devices enumerated in Section 1 of RA 4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered as tapping
the wire or cable of a telephone line. The telephone extension in this case was not installed for that
purpose. It just happened to be there for ordinary office use. It is a rule in statutory construction that in
order to determine the true intent of the legislature, the particular clauses and phrases of the statute
should not be taken as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part thereof must be
considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts. (see Commissioner of Customs v. Esso Estandard
Eastern, Inc., 66 SCRA 113,120).

***
Hence, the phrase device or arrangement in Section 1 of RA 4200, although not exclusive to that
enumerated therein, should be construed to comprehend instruments of the same or similar nature,
that is, instruments the use of which would be tantamount to tapping the main line of a telephone. It
refers to instruments whose installation or presence cannot be presumed by the party or parties being
overheard because, by their very nature, they are not of common usage and their purpose is precisely
for tapping, intercepting or recording a telephone conversation. x x x