Article 694 of the Civil Code of the Philippines defines nuisance: A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which: (1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; (2) Annoy or offends the senses; (3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; (4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or a body of water; or (5) Hinders or impairs the use of property.
Nuisances are either public or private. A private nuisance is one which violates only private rights and produces damages to but one or a few persons. A public nuisance, on the other hand, interferes with the exercise of public right by directly encroaching on public property or by causing a common injury.
It has already been settled that noise is not a nuisance per se. A noise can be considered a nuisance only if it affects injuriously the health or comfort of ordinary people in the vicinity to an unreasonable extent. Injury to a particular person in a peculiar position or of especially sensitive characteristics will not render the noise an actionable nuisance. In the conditions of present living, noise seems inseparable from the conduct of many necessary occupations. Its presence is a nuisance in the popular sense in which that word is used, but in the absence of statute, noise becomes actionable only when it passes the limits of reasonable adjustment to the conditions of the locality and of the needs of the maker to the needs of the listener. What those limits are cannot be fixed by any definite measure of quantity or quality; they depend upon the circumstances of the particular case.
In Frabelle Properties Corp vs AC Enterprises Inc,[1] the Supreme Court explained that the test is whether right of property, of health or comfort are so injuriously affected by the noise in question that the sufferer is subjected to a loss which goes beyond the reasonable limit imposed upon him by the condition of living, or of holding property, in a particular locality in fact devoted to uses which involved the emission of noise although ordinary care is taken to confine it within the reasonable bounds; or in the vicinity of property of another owner who, though creating a noise, is acting with reasonable regard for the rights of those affected by it.
As further explained by the High Court in the recent case of CFC School of the Morning Star (CFCSMS) vs Wideline[2]:
“Commercial and industrial activities which are lawful in themselves, may become nuisances if they are so offensive to the senses that they render the enjoyment of life and property uncomfortable. The fact that the cause of the complaint must be substantial has often led to expressions in the opinions that to be a nuisance, the noise must be deafening or loud or excessive and unreasonable. The determining factor when noise alone is the cause of complaint is not its intensity or volume. It is that the noise is of such character as to produce actual physical discomfort and annoyance to a person of ordinary sensibilities, rendering adjacent property less comfortable and valuable. If the noise does that it can well be said to be substantial and unreasonable in degree; and reasonableness is a question of fact dependent upon all the circumstances and conditions. There can be no fixed standard as to what kind of noise constitutes a nuisance.
The courts have made it clear that in every case the question is one of reasonableness. What is a reasonable use of one’s property and whether a particular use is an unreasonable invasion of another’s use and enjoyment of his property so as to constitute a nuisance cannot be determined by exact rules, but must necessarily depend upon the circumstances of each case, such as locality and the character of the surroundings, the nature, utility and social value of the use, the extent and nature of the harm involved, the nature, utility and social value of the use or enjoyment invaded, and the like.”
In Frabelle Properties Corporation, this Court carefully considered whether the sounds produced from the air-condition blowers are ordinarily expected from the conduct of the defendant’s lawful business. It held that the use of air-conditioning units in commercial and office spaces is part of ordinary local business conditions and is expected in the commercial rental industry, especially with the intense heat in the Philippines. It likewise took into account the limited available real estate at the Makati Central Business District, wherein buildings are closely located to each other. Thus, this Court concluded that sounds coming from buildings in the proximity are expected to be heard, thereby absolving the defendant from damages.
In the case of CFCSMS, on the other hand, it was held that the noise emanating from CFC-SMS constitutes academic noise, or sounds incident to the operation of an educational institution. In fact, the noise complained of arose from school activities loud music from school programs, practices, games, instructions, instruments, film showings, and construction works. In addition to that, it was also declared that the complainant therein are hardly representative of the typical level of sensitivity or may be regarded as persons of ordinary sensibilities. One complainant is a senior citizen who may be more sensitive to stress and anxiety and more intolerant of sensory input. Also the latter failed to prove that her medical condition worsened due to the noise produced by CFC-SMS. The medical certificate she presented merely states that she should maintain a healthy lifestyle and avoid stressful conditions. Neither was there any evidence of her prior health status to definitively establish a correlation between the noise and her condition.
Anent the other complaining witnesses, One was pursuing her master’s degree, and her son was likewise studying. Indeed, having to focus on studying renders them more sensitive to the slightest noise. Evidently, the lifestyle of the complaining witnesses cannot be deemed as normal or reflective of the usual living habits of the other residents. Their sentiments and experiences were not shown to be similarly shared by their neighbors, who would likewise regard the noise from CFC-SMS as a nuisance. There is also no evidence showing that the noise adversely affected the health or comfort of the people within the vicinity to an unreasonable extent.
[1] G.R. No. 245438, November 03, 2020
[2] G.R. No. 278875