AYER PRODUCTIONS PTY. LTD. and McELROY & McELROY FILM PRODUCTIONS, Petitioners, v. HON. IGNACIO M. CAPULONG and JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Respondents. [G.R. No. L-82380. April 29, 1988.]; and HAL McELROY, Petitioner, v. HON. IGNACIO M. CAPULONG, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 134 and JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Respondents. [G.R. No. L-82398. April 29, 1988.].
See – www.chanrobles.com
“x x x.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; RIGHT OF PRIVACY, INCLUDED IN OUR LAW; SCOPE AND CONTENT MARKED OUT BY CASELAW. — It was demonstrated sometime ago by the then Dean Irene R. Corts that our law, constitutional and statutory, does include a right of privacy. It is left to case law, however, to mark out the precise scope and content of this right in differing types of particular situations.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT AND CANNOT BE INVOKED TO RESIST PUBLICATION AND DISSEMINATION OF MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST. — The right of privacy or "the right to be let alone," like the right of free expression, 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 elicited from him or to be published about him constitute 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 interest sought to be protected by the right of privacy is the right to be free from "unwarranted publicity, from the wrongful publicizing of the private affairs and activities of an individual which are outside the realm of legitimate public concern."cralaw virtua1aw library
X x x.”