-AMALAYER- - Rude LRT Girl Passenger (November 13, 2012)

[kulotzki]

hahaha! pastilan jud ka boss domz hehehehe


I gues this clearly is a good example for the RA 10175 in action. This is basically what needs to be contained within the situation at hand at the time the incident happened. But Gregory Llamoso had to publish the video just for his own gain and pride. Gregory, as a jerk as he is, just clearly wanted to feel good in feeling heroism within the constraint of public humiliation at its higher level; humiliation by nation or world! He should not be tolerated and i think, he is not different at all from those who posts nude pictures/video as the end result are all the same.

[Elvis]

Police is monitoring the Amalayer issue,

[AntitaniC]

Bro, if you ask any lawyer this falls under invasion of privacy. People do NOT need to be nude, people do NOT need to be in a private place for it for be considered as an invasion of privacy. As I mentioned, that situation could have been contained in the LRT area, and now it's for the entire world to see.

Besides, did the uploaded even ask permission to post such "sensitive" and "intense" situation? He did it out of the thought, that the berating girl should be taught a lesson. That's just a poor judgement on Gregory Paulo Llamoso.
Your argument if brought to court will definitely raise the brows of both the judge and legal counsel.

I'm just wondering, are you a lawyer? coz I've already asked this one and even the websites agreed to it..

what are the grounds for Invasion of privacy?

invasion of privacy n. the intrusion into the personal life of another, without just cause, which can give the person whose privacy has been invaded a right to bring a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity that intruded. However, public personages are not protected in most situations, since they have placed themselves already within the public eye, and their activities (even personal and sometimes intimate) are considered newsworthy, i.e. of legitimate public interest. However, an otherwise non-public individual has a right to privacy from:

1) intrusion on one's solitude or into one's private affairs;

2) public disclosure of embarrassing private information;

3) publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public;

4) appropriation of one's name or picture for personal or commercial advantage.

Lawsuits have arisen from magazine articles on obscure geniuses, use of a wife's name on a hospital insurance form to obtain insurance payment for delivery of a mistress' baby, unauthorized use of a girl's photo to advertise a photographer, and "tabloid" journalism treatment of people as freaks. There are also numerous instances of governmental invasion of privacy such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation compiling files on people considered as political opponents, partially corrected by the passage of the Freedom of Information Act in 1966. The right to privacy

source:invasion of privacy legal definition of invasion of privacy. invasion of privacy synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

in short, if you do something in public... or you're not in a place with a sign that says "THIS IS A PRIVATE AREA"
any picture,video that was taken from you can never be considered invasion of privacy.

he may refute about the number 4 as for a reason that he didn't know anything about the girl and he didn't have any reason for any personal gain.

Like for example, a tourist is taking a picture/video of a Beautiful St. Niño church. and while he/she was taking a video of its magnificent architecture there's this couple suddenly comes in and argue/fight in front of his lens. so would the court consider it "invasion of privacy"?. Well let her bring this in court then we will see who's eyebrows will be raising...

problem of most people is concluding without knowing the details and differences about the law.

If there's a case that should be filed, That's defamation with that case that's a sure win with so much compensation from those who called her names in websites. (if she can trace them one by one)

[lestat1116]

gani na situation. dako jud ni if imo gamiton ang cyber crime law. sunod ani. wala nay mga news kay dli naman pwede pakuhan kay invasion of privacy na tanan.

[lestat1116]

1) intrusion on one's solitude or into one's private affairs;

murag dli naman to private affairs coz shes was shouting already so that makita sa tanan. i think iya gibuhat is pakauwawan niya ang lady guard.

[Renz8]

One sided sad jud kaayo ang video kay wala man gud g-pakita ang entire situation.....ang pag berate lang sa girl mao na upload ang sinugdanan wala.....tinoud sayop ang g-buhat sa girl apan dakoong sayop pud sa nag upload kay wala nakuha ang side sa girl......sa coin bataw 2 man ang nawong so better jud nga 2 ang hatagan ug storya para fair.............

[monroy]

AntitaniC: Mao jud bro.. daghan kaayog hilig mo kiha kiha dayun dire sa pilipinas bahala nag ignorante kaayo sa balaod.. mo siyagit dayun og "CYBER CRIME, CYBER BULLY" pero wala diay nakabasa sa balaud.

Mao na dali ra kaayo madato ang mga salbahis nga abogado dire. kai daghan kaayog ignorante nga magpa file 2x dayon og kaso bahala nag walay chance makadaog...

sue happy + ignoy = pordoy

[high_heels]

I'm just wondering, are you a lawyer? coz I've already asked this one and even the websites agreed to it..

what are the grounds for Invasion of privacy?

invasion of privacy n. the intrusion into the personal life of another, without just cause, which can give the person whose privacy has been invaded a right to bring a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity that intruded. However, public personages are not protected in most situations, since they have placed themselves already within the public eye, and their activities (even personal and sometimes intimate) are considered newsworthy, i.e. of legitimate public interest. However, an otherwise non-public individual has a right to privacy from:

1) intrusion on one's solitude or into one's private affairs;

2) public disclosure of embarrassing private information;

3) publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public;

4) appropriation of one's name or picture for personal or commercial advantage.

Lawsuits have arisen from magazine articles on obscure geniuses, use of a wife's name on a hospital insurance form to obtain insurance payment for delivery of a mistress' baby, unauthorized use of a girl's photo to advertise a photographer, and "tabloid" journalism treatment of people as freaks. There are also numerous instances of governmental invasion of privacy such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation compiling files on people considered as political opponents, partially corrected by the passage of the Freedom of Information Act in 1966. The right to privacy

source:invasion of privacy legal definition of invasion of privacy. invasion of privacy synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

in short, if you do something in public... or you're not in a place with a sign that says "THIS IS A PRIVATE AREA"
any picture,video that was taken from you can never be considered invasion of privacy.

he may refute about the number 4 as for a reason that he didn't know anything about the girl and he didn't have any reason for any personal gain.

Like for example, a tourist is taking a picture/video of a Beautiful St. Niño church. and while he/she was taking a video of its magnificent architecture there's this couple suddenly comes in and argue/fight in front of his lens. so would the court consider it "invasion of privacy"?. Well let her bring this in court then we will see who's eyebrows will be raising...

problem of most people is concluding without knowing the details and differences about the law.

If there's a case that should be filed, That's defamation with that case that's a sure win with so much compensation from those who called her names in websites. (if she can trace them one by one)

WTF?!?!?! I'm just wondering, are you a lawyer? coz I've already asked this one and even the websites agreed to it.. <---- unsay source nimo bro? A FREE ONLINE LAW DICTIONARY? hahaha..pagka kingkoy!

Take your rebuttals to any lawyer, let's see if it gets you anywhere.

Akoa ni i pin point imong gi sulti diri ha....para ma elaborate and ma compare nato sa actual nga balaod sa Pilipinas.


in short, if you do something in public... or you're not in a place with a sign that says "THIS IS A PRIVATE AREA"
any picture,video that was taken from you can never be considered invasion of privacy. <--- sure ka? this is according to you, which my friend is obviously NOT TRUE.

Dara ai, basaha kung unsay provision for the "Personal Privacy Protection Act"

A person shall not be subject to such violation by reason of the conduct of
an agent, employee, or contractor of that person or because images or
recordings captured in violation of this Act were solicited, bought, used, or sold
by that person, except when such person has prior knowledge of the commission
of the act or after knowledge, condoned the violation of the agent, the person
shall be held criminally liable. <--- ang pasabot ana, kung walay PERMISO (without any permission/consent) si Gregory Llamoso gikan kang Paula and the guard to post the vid online. Then by law he has VIOLATED the privacy of the two women by posting the video online.

Source: Philippine Senate http://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/99758558!.pdf

[sakagawasan]

in this case, ang mga entrapment operations ug mga hidden videos sa xxx ug imbestigador, nag-violate diay sila anang personal privacy protection act?

[monroy]

Antititanc is right, a friend who is a lawyer who doesn't even understand the meaning of privacy is one dumb lawyer.

PS There are many very stupid and/or unethical lawyers in this country.

Anyone can file any case, but winning a case is a whole different matter entirely. Easy to file, impossible to win is a common situation here. Some lawyers have very low win rates in court.. a few even have 0 wins after 5 years practice.. imagine that! Even the lawyers who know the law, but are unethical will let their clients file a case just so they can get paid filing fee, appearance fee, etc. even if there's no chance of winning the case. For the worst lawyers, this is their bread and butter. Whether their client wins or loses, they already "won".