Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. L-!"#$ Au%ust &' #(
PE)RO *. +ELASCO' plaintiff-appellant'
,s.
MAN-LA ELECTR-C CO.' .-LL-AM SN/)ER' its P0esi1ent2 *O3N COTTON an1 3ERMENEG-L)O B.
RE/ES' its +ice-P0esi1ents2 an1 ANASTAC-O A. AGAN' Cit4 En%inee0 of 5ue6on Cit4' 1efen1ants-
appellees.
Q. Paredes, B. Evangelista and R. T. Durian for plaintiff-appellant.
Ross, Selph and Carrascoso for defendants-appellees Manila Electric Co., etc., et al.
sst. Cit! "iscal #ai$e R. gloro for defendant-appellee nastacio . gan, etc.

RE/ES' *.B.L.' #.%
The p0esent case is 1i0ect appeal 7p0io0 to Republic Act 899$: b4 the he0ein plaintiff-appellant' Pe10o *.
+elasco 7petitione0 in L-9$"82 0espon1ent in L-"##;: < f0o= the 1ecision of the Cou0t of >i0st -nstance of
Ri6al' 5ue6on Cit4 B0anch' in its Ci,il Case No. "88' absol,in% the 1efen1ants f0o= a co=plaint fo0 the
abate=ent of the sub-station as a nuisance an1 fo0 1a=a%es to his health an1 business in the a=ount of
P9!('&$$.$$.
-n #9!' appellant +elasco bou%ht f0o= the People?s 3o=esite an1 3ousin% Co0po0ation th0ee 7":
a1@oinin% lots situate1 at the co0ne0 of South ) an1 South & St0eets' )ili=an' 5ue6on Cit4. These lots a0e
Aithin an a0ea 6one1 out as a Bfi0st 0esi1enceB 1ist0ict b4 the Cit4 Council of 5ue6on Cit4. SubseCuentl4'
the appellant sol1 tAo 7;: lots to the Me0alco' but 0etaine1 the thi01 lot' Ahich Aas fa0thest f0o= the st0eet-
co0ne0' Ahe0eon he built his house.
-n Septe=be0' #8"' the appellee co=pan4 sta0te1 the const0uction of the sub-station in Cuestion an1
finishe1 it the folloAin% No,e=be0' Aithout p0io0 buil1in% pe0=it o0 autho0it4 f0o= the Public Se0,ice
Co==ission 7Me0alco ,s. Public Se0,ice Co==ission' $# Phil. &$":. The facilit4 0e1uces hi%h ,olta%e
elect0icit4 to a cu00ent suitable fo0 1ist0ibution to the co=pan4?s consu=e0s' nu=be0in% not less than !'8$$
0esi1ential ho=es' o,e0 "$$ co==e0cial establish=ents an1 about "$ in1ust0ies 7T.s.n.' # Octobe0 #8#'
pa%e (&8:. The substation has a 0ate1 capacit4 of B; t0ansfo0=e0s at 8$$$ D,a each o0 a total of $'$$$
D,a Aithout fan coolin%2 o0 &;8$ D,a each o0 a total of ;'8$$ D,a Aith fan coolin%B 7EEhibit BA-"B:. -t Aas
const0ucte1 at a 1istance of $ to ;$ =ete0s f0o= the appellant?s house 7T.s.n.' & *ul4 #8&' pa%e &;2 #
)ece=be0 #8&' pa%e "9"2 *une #8#' pa%e ;#:. The co=pan4 built a stone an1 ce=ent Aall at the
si1es alon% the st0eets but alon% the si1e a1@oinin% the appellant?s p0ope0t4 it put up a saAale Aall but
late0 chan%e1 it to an inte0linF Ai0e fence.
-t is un1ispute1 that a soun1 unceasin%l4 e=anates f0o= the substation. .hethe0 this soun1 constitutes
an actionable nuisance o0 not is the p0incipal issue in this case.
Plaintiff-appellant +elasco conten1s that the soun1 constitutes an actionable nuisance un1e0 A0ticle &#9
of the Ci,il Co1e of the Philippines' 0ea1in% as folloAsG
A nuisance is an4 act' o=ission' establish=ent' business con1ition of p0ope0t4 o0
an4thin% else AhichG
7: -n@u0ies o0 en1an%e0s the health o0 safet4 of othe0s2 o0
7;: Anno4s o0 offen1s the senses2
EEE EEE EEE
because sub@ection to the soun1 since #89 ha1 1istu0be1 the concent0ation an1 sleep of sai1 appellant'
an1 i=pai0e1 his health an1 loAe0e1 the ,alue of his p0ope0t4. .he0efo0e' he sou%ht a @u1icial 1ec0ee fo0
the abate=ent of the nuisance an1 asFe1 that he be 1ecla0e1 entitle1 to 0eco,e0 co=pensato04' =o0al
an1 othe0 1a=a%es un1e0 A0ticle ;;$; of the Ci,il Co1e.
ART. ;;$;. -n c0i=es an1 Cuasi-1elicts' the 1efen1ant shall be liable fo0 all 1a=a%es
Ahich a0e the natu0al an1 p0obable conseCuences of the act o0 o=ission co=plaine1 of. -t
is not necessa04 that such 1a=a%es ha,e been fo0eseen o0 coul1 ha,e 0easonabl4 been
fo0eseen b4 the 1efen1ant.
Afte0 t0ial' as al0ea14 obse0,e1' the cou0t beloA 1is=isse1 the clai= of the plaintiff' fin1in% that the soun1
of substation Aas una,oi1able an1 1i1 not constitute nuisance2 that it coul1 not ha,e cause1 the 1iseases
of anEiet4 neu0osis' p4eloneph0itis' u0ete0itis' lu=ba%o an1 ane=ia2 an1 that the ite=s of 1a=a%e clai=e1
b4 plaintiff Ae0e not a1eCuate p0o,e1. Plaintiff then appeale1 to this Cou0t.
The %ene0al 0ule is that e,e04one is boun1 to bea0 the habitual o0 custo=a04 incon,eniences that 0esult
f0o= the p0oEi=it4 of othe0s' an1 so lon% as this le,el is not su0passe1' he =a4 not co=plain a%ainst
the=. But if the p0e@u1ice eEcee1s the incon,eniences that such p0oEi=it4 habituall4 b0in%s' the nei%hbo0
Aho causes such 1istu0bance is hel1 0esponsible fo0 the 0esultin% 1a=a%e'

bein% %uilt4 of causin%
nuisance.
.hile no p0e,ious a1@u1ications on the specific issue ha,e been =a1e in the Philippines' ou0 laA of
nuisances is of A=e0ican o0i%in' an1 a 0e,ieA of autho0ities clea0l4 in1icates the 0ule to be that the
causin% o0 =aintenance of 1istu0bin% noise o0 soun1 =a4 constitute an actionable nuisance 7+. E1. Note'
;" ALR' ;1 ;!#:. The basic p0inciples a0e lai1 1oAn in Tortorella vs. Traiser & Co., 'nc.' #$ ALR ;$&G
A noise =a4 constitute an actionable nuisance' Rogers vs. Elliott' 9& Mass' "9#' 8 N.E.
(&!' 9 A=. St. Rep. "&' Stevens v. Roc(port )ranite Co.' ;& Mass. 9!&' $9 N.E. "('
Ann. Cas. #8B' #89'Stodder v. Rosen Tal(ing Machine Co.' ;9 Mass. ;98' "8 N. E.
;8' ;; A. L. R. #(' but it =ust be a noise Ahich affects in@u0iousl4 the health o0 co=fo0t
of o01ina04 people in the ,icinit4 to an un0easonable eEtent. -n@u04 to a pa0ticula0 pe0son in
a peculia0 position o0 of speciall4 sensiti,e cha0acte0istics Aill not 0en1e0 the noise an
actionable nuisance. Rogers v. Elliott' 9& Mass. "9#' 8 N. E. (&!' 9 A=. St. Rep. "&.
-n the con1itions of p0esent li,in% noise see=s insepa0able f0o= the con1uct of =an4
necessa04 occupations. -ts p0esence is a nuisance in the popula0 sense in Ahich that
Ao01 is use1' but in the absence of statute noise beco=es actionable onl4 Ahen it passes
the li=its of 0easonable a1@ust=ent to the con1itions of the localit4 an1 of the nee1s of
the =aFe0 to the nee1s of the listene0. .hat those li=its a0e cannot be fiEe1 b4 an4
1efinite =easu0e of Cuantit4 o0 Cualit4. The4 1epen1 upon the ci0cu=stances of the
pa0ticula0 case. The4 =a4 be affecte1' but a0e not cont0olle1' b4 6onin%
o01inances. Beane v. *. #. Porter, 'nc.' ;!$ Mass. 8"!' !; N. E. !;"' Marshal v.
*ol+roo(' ;(& Mass. "9' (( N. E. 8$9' Strachan v. Beacon ,il Co.' ;8 Mass. 9(#'
9& N. E. (!(. The 1eli=itation of 1esi%nate1 a0eas to use fo0 =anufactu0in%' in1ust04 o0
%ene0al business is not a license to e=it e,e04 noise p0ofitabl4 atten1in% the con1uct of
an4 one of the=. Bean v. *. #. Porter, 'nc.. ;!$ Mass. 8"!' !; N. E. !;". The test is
Ahethe0 0i%hts of p0ope0t4 of health o0 of co=fo0t a0e so in@u0iousl4 affecte1 b4 the noise
in Cuestion that the suffe0e0 is sub@ecte1 to a loss Ahich %oes be4on1 the 0easonable li=it
i=pose1 upon hi= b4 the con1ition of li,in%' o0 of hol1in% p0ope0t4' in a pa0ticula0 localit4
in fact 1e,ote1 to uses Ahich in,ol,e the e=ission of noise althou%h o01ina04 ca0e is
taFen to confine it Aithin 0easonable boun1s2 o0 in the ,icinit4 of p0ope0t4 of anothe0
oAne0 Aho thou%h c0eatin% a noise is actin% Aith 0easonable 0e%a01 fo0 the 0i%hts of those
affecte1 b4 it. Stevens v. Roc(port )ranite Co.' ;& Mass. 9!&' $9 NE "(' Ann. Cas.
#8B' $89.
.ith pa0ticula0 0efe0ence to noise e=anatin% f0o= elect0ical =achine04 an1 appliances' the cou0t'
in -entuc(! & .est /irginia Po0er Co. v. nderson' 8& S. .. ;1 !8(' afte0 a 0e,ieA of autho0ities' 0ule1
as folloAsG
The0e can be no 1oubt but that co==e0cial an1 in1ust0ial acti,ities Ahich a0e laAful in
the=sel,es =a4 beco=e nuisances if the4 a0e so offensi,e to the senses that the4 0en1e0
the en@o4=ent of life an1 p0ope0t4 unco=fo0table. -t is no 1efense that sFill an1 ca0e ha,e
been eEe0cise1 an1 the =ost i=p0o,e1 =etho1s an1 appliances e=plo4e1 to p0e,ent
such 0esult. .heat Culvert Co$pan! v. #en(ins' ;9& D4. "#' 88 S. .. ;1 92 9& C.*. &!"'
($82 ;$ R. C. L. 9"!2 Annotations' ;" A. L. R. 9$(2 #$ A. L. R. ;$(. Of cou0se' the
c0eation of t0iflin% anno4ance an1 incon,enience 1oes not constitute an actionable
nuisance' an1 the localit4 an1 su00oun1in%s a0e of i=po0tance. The fact that the cause of
the co=plaint =ust be substantial has often le1 to eEp0essions in the opinions that to be a
nuisance the noise =ust be 1eafenin% o0 lou1 o0 eEcessi,e an1 un0easonable. Usuall4 it
Aas shoAn to be of that cha0acte0. The 1ete0=inatin% facto0 Ahen noise alone is the
cause of co=plaint is not its intensit4 o0 ,olu=e. -t is that the noise is of such cha0acte0 as
to p0o1uce actual ph4sical 1isco=fo0t an1 anno4ance to a pe0son of o01ina04 sensibilities'
0en1e0in% a1@acent p0ope0t4 less co=fo0table an1 ,aluable. -f the noise 1oes that it can
Aell be sai1 to be substantial an1 un0easonable in 1e%0ee2 an1 0easonableness is a
Cuestion of fact 1epen1ent upon all the ci0cu=stances an1 con1itions. ;$ R. C. L. 998'
98"2 .heat Culvert Co$pan! v. #en(ins, supra. The0e can be no fiEe1 stan1a01 as to
Ahat Fin1 of noise constitutes a nuisance. -t is t0ue so=e Aitnesses in this case sa4 the4
ha,e been anno4e1 b4 the hu==in% of these t0ansfo0=e0s' but that fact is not conclusi,e
as to the noneEistence of the cause of co=plaint' the test bein% the effect Ahich is ha1
upon an o01ina04 pe0son Aho is neithe0 sensiti,e no0 i==une to the anno4ance
conce0nin% Ahich the co=plaint is =a1e. -n the absence of e,i1ence that the co=plainant
an1 his fa=il4 a0e supe0sensiti,e to 1ist0actin% noises' it is to be assu=e1 that the4 a0e
pe0sons of o01ina04 an1 no0=al sensibilities. Rou(ovina v. 'sland "ar$ Crea$er!
Co$pan!' &$ Minn. ""8' ;$$ N. .. "8$' "! A. L. R. 8$;.
EEE EEE EEE
-n .heat Culvert Co$pan! vs. #en(ins, supra' Ae hel1 an in@unction Aas p0ope0l4
1ec0ee1 to stop the noise f0o= the ope0ation of a =etal cul,e0t facto04 at ni%ht Ahich
inte0fe0e1 Aith the sleep of the occupants of an a1@acent 0esi1ence. -t is t0ue the clan%in%'
0i,etin% an1 ha==e0in% of =etal plates p0o1uces a soun1 1iffe0ent in cha0acte0 f0o= the
stea14 hu= o0 bu66 of the elect0ic =achine04 1esc0ibe1 in this case. -n the *enFins case
the noise Aas lou1' 1isco01ant an1 inte0=ittent. 3e0e it is inte0=inable an1 =onotonous.
The0ein lies the ph4sical anno4ance an1 1istu0bance. Thou%h the noise be ha0=onious
an1 sli%ht an1 t0i,ial in itself' the constant an1 =onotonous soun1 of a c0icFet on the
ea0th' o0 the 10ip of a leaFin% faucet is i00itatin%' unco=fo0table' 1ist0actin% an1 1istu0bin%
to the a,e0a%e =an an1 Ao=an. So it is that the intole0able' stea14 =onoton4 of this
ceaseless soun1' lou1 enou%h to inte0fe0e Aith o01ina04 con,e0sation in the 1Aellin%'
p0o1uces a 0esult %ene0all4 1ee=e1 sufficient to constitute the cause of it an actionable
nuisance. Thus' it has been hel1 the continuous an1 =onotonous pla4in% of a
phono%0aph fo0 a1,e0tisin% pu0poses on the st0eet e,en thou%h the0e Ae0e ,a0ious
0eco01s' sin%in%' speaFin% an1 inst0u=ental' in@u0iousl4 affecte1 plaintiff?s e=plo4ees b4 a
%0a1ual Aea0 on thei0 ne0,ous s4ste=s' an1 othe0Aise' is a nuisance autho0i6in% an
in@unction an1 1a=a%es. "ran( ". Stodder, et al. v. Rosen Tal(ing Machine Co$pan!' ;9
Mass. ;98' "8 N. E. ;8' ;; A. L. R. #(.
The p0inciples thus lai1 1oAn =aFe it 0ea1il4 appa0ent that inCui04 =ust be 1i0ecte1 at the cha0acte0 an1
intensit4 of the noise %ene0ate1 b4 the pa0ticula0 substation of the appellee. As can be anticipate1'
cha0acte0 an1 lou1ness of soun1 bein% of sub@ecti,e app0eciation in o01ina04 Aitnesses' not =uch help
can be obtaine1 f0o= the testi=onial e,i1ence. That of plaintiff +elasco is too plainl4 biase1 an1
e=otional to be of =uch ,alue. 3is eEa%%e0ations a0e 0ea1il4 appa0ent in pa0a%0aph + of his a=en1e1
co=plaint' si%ne1 b4 hi= as Aell as his counsel' Ahe0ein the noise co=plaine1 of as H
fea0ful ha6a01ous noise an1 clan%o0 a0e p0o1uce1 b4 the sai1 elect0ic t0ansfo0=e0 of the
MEC?s substation' app0oEi=atin% a noise of a 0eacti,ate1 about-to-eEplo1e ,olcano'
pe0haps liFe the ne0,e A0acFin% noise of the to0tu0e cha=be0 in Ge0=an4?s )achau o0
BuchenAal1 7Reco01 on Appeal' pa%e &:.
The esti=ate of the othe0 Aitnesses on the point of inCui04 a0e ,a%ue an1 i=p0ecise' an1 fail to %i,e a
1efinite i1ea of the intensit4 of the soun1 co=plaine1 of. ThusG
OSCAR SANTOS' Chief Buil1in% -nspecto0' )epa0t=ent of En%inee0in%' 5ue6on Cit4 IIII Bthe soun1 7at
the f0ont 1oo0 of plaintiff +elasco?s house: beco=es noticeable onl4 Ahen - t0ie1 to concent0ate ........B
7T.s.n.' & *ul4 #8&' pa%e 8$:
SERA>-N +-LLARAJA' Buil1in% -nspecto0 IIII B..... liFe a hi%h pitch note.B 7the t0ial cou0t?s 1esc0iption as
to the i=itation of noise =a1e b4 AitnessGB........ =o0e of a hissin% soun1: 7T.s.n.' & *ul4 #8&' pa%es 8#-
&$:
CONSTANC-O SOR-A' Cit4 Elect0ician IIII B........ hu==in% soun1B ..... Bof a 0unnin% ca0B. 7T.s.n.' &
*ul4 #8&' pa%e !(:
*OSE R. AL+AREJ' Sanita04 En%inee0' 5ue6on Cit4 3ealth )epa0t=ent IIII B..... substation e=its a
continuous 0u=blin% soun1 Ahich is au1ible Aithin the p0e=ises an1 at about a 0a1ius of ($ =ete0s.B B-
sta4e1 the0e f0o= &G$$ p.=. to about G$$ o?clocF in the =o0nin%B ..... Binc0eases Aith the app0oach of
tAili%ht.B 7T.s.n.' 8 Septe=be0 #8&' pa%es 9$-99:
NORBERTO S. AMORANTO' 5ue6on Cit4 Ma4o0 IIII 7fo0 "$ =inutes in the st0eet at a 1istance of ; to
8 =ete0s f0o= sub-station: B- felt no effect on =4self.B B..... no Kpie0cin% noiseLB 7T.s.n.' ! Septe=be0
#8&' pa%e !#:
PAC->-CO AUSTR-A' a0chitect' appellant?s nei%hbo0G B..... liFe an app0oachin% ai0plane ..... a0oun1 fi,e
Filo=ete0s aAa4.B 7T.s.n.' # No,e=be0 #8&' pa%es ;(&-;((:
ANGEL )EL ROSAR-O' 0a1iolo%ist' appellant?s nei%hbo0G B..... as if it is a 0unnin% =oto0 o0 a 0unnin%
14na=o' Ahich 1istu0bs the ea0 an1 the hea0in% of a pe0son.B T.s.n.' 9 )ece=be0 #8&' pa%e ;:
ANTON-O ). PAGU-A' laA4e0 IIII B-t =a4 be liFene1 to the soun1 e=itte1 b4 the Ahistle of a boat at a
fa0 1istance but it is ,e04 au1ible.B 7T.s.n.' # )ece=be0 #8&' pa%e "$#:
RENE RO)R-GUEJ' su%a0 plante0 an1 su%a0 b0oFe0' appellant?s nei%hbo0 IIII B-t soun1s liFe a bi%
=oto0 0unnin% continuousl4.B 7T.s.n.' # )ece=be0 #8&' pa%e "9(:
S-MPL-C-O BEL-SAR-O' A0=4 captain' IIII 7on a ,isit to +elasco: B- can co=pa0e the noise to an
ai0plane C-9( bein% sta0te1 - the =oto0.B K)i1 not notice the noise f0o= the substation Ahen passin% b4' in
a ca0' +elasco?s houseL 7T.s.n.' ( *anua04 #8(' pa%es -;:
MANOLO CONSTANT-NO' business=an' appellant?s nei%hbo0 IIII B-t 1istu0bs ou0 concent0ation of
=in1.B 7T.s.n.' $ *anua04 #8(' pa%e :
PE)RO P-CA' business=an' appellant?s nei%hbo0G B..... .e can hea0 it ,e04 Aell Kat a 1istance of $$ to
8$ =ete0sL. 7T.s.n.' $ *anua04 #8(' pa%e 9:
C-RENEO PUNJALAN' laA4e0 IIII B..... a continuous 10onin%' ..... liFe the soun1 of an ai0plane.B 7T.s.n.'
( *anua04 #8(' pa%e "!8:
*A-ME C. JAGU-RRE' Chief' Neu0o-Ps4chiat04 Section' +. Luna Gen. 3ospital IIII B..... co=pa0ati,el4
the soun1 Aas 0eall4 lou1 to bothe0 a =an sleepin%.B 7T.s.n.' ( *anua04 #8(' pa%e 9$&:
.e a0e thus const0aine1 to 0el4 on Cuantitati,e =easu0e=ents shoAn b4 the 0eco01. Un1e0 inst0uctions
f0o= the )i0ecto0 of 3ealth' sa=plin%s of the soun1 intensit4 Ae0e taFen b4 )0. *esus Al=onte usin% a
soun1 le,el =ete0 an1 othe0 inst0u=ents. .ithin the co=poun1 of the plaintiff-appellant' nea0 the Ai0e
fence se0,in% as p0ope0t4 line betAeen hi= an1 the appellee' on ;( Au%ust #8( at G98 a.=.' the soun1
le,el un1e0 the sa=paloc t0ee Aas 9&-9! 1ecibels' Ahile behin1 +elasco?s Fitchen' the =ete0 0e%iste0e1
9#-8$2 at the sa=e places on ;# Au%ust #8(' at &G$$ a.=.' the 0ea1in%s Ae0e 8&-8# an1 &-&; 1ecibels'
0especti,el42 on ( Septe=be0 #8(' at #G"$ a.=.' the soun1 le,el un1e0 the sa=paloc t0ee Aas (9-(&
1ecibels2 an1 on ! Septe=be0 #8( at "G"8 in the =o0nin%' the 0ea1in% un1e0 the sa=e t0ee Aas ($
1ecibels' Ahile nea0 the Fitchen it Aas (#-!$ 1ecibels. Se,e0al =easu0e=ents Ae0e also taFen insi1e an1
outsi1e the house 7EEhibit BNN-(' b-fB:. The a=bient soun1 of the localit4' o0 that soun1 le,el
cha0acte0istic of it o0 that soun1 p0e1o=inatin% =inus the soun1 of the sub-station is f0o= ;! to ";
1ecibels. 7T.s.n.' ;& Ma0ch #8!' pa%es &-(:
Ma=e0to Buenafe' supe0inten1ent of the appellee?s elect0ical labo0ato04' also tooF soun1 le,el sa=plin%s.
On # )ece=be0 #8!' betAeen (G$$ to (G"$ o?clocF in the e,enin%' at the substation co=poun1 nea0 the
Ai0e fence o0 p0ope0t4 line' the 0ea1in%s Ae0e 88 an1 89 an1 still nea0 the fence close to the sa=paloc
t0ee' it Aas 8; 1ecibels2 outsi1e but close to the conc0ete Aall' the 0ea1in%s Ae0e 9; to 9" 1ecibels2 an1
nea0 the t0ansfo0=e0s' it Aas (& 1ecibels 7EEhibit B"B:.
Buenafe also tooF sa=plin%s at the No0th Gene0al 3ospital on 9 *anua04 #8# betAeen #G$8 to #G98 in
the e,enin%. -n the 1iffe0ent 0oo=s an1 Aa01s f0o= the fi0st to the fou0th floo0s' the 0ea1in%s ,a0ie1 f0o=
98 to &( 1ecibels.
Technical cha0ts sub=itte1 in e,i1ence shoA the folloAin% intensit4 le,els in 1ecibels of so=e fa=ilia0
soun1sG a,e0a%e 0esi1enceG 9$2 a,e0a%e officeG 882 a,e0a%e auto=obile' 8 feetG ($2 noisiest spot at
Nia%a0a >allsG #; 7EEhibit B- BB:2 a,e0a%e 1Aellin%G "82 Cuiet officeG 9$2 a,e0a%e officeG 8$2 con,e0sationG
&$2 pneu=atic 0ocF 10illG "$ 7EEhibit B;B:2 Cuiet ho=e H a,e0a%e li,in% 0oo=G 9$2 ho=e ,entilation fan'
outsi1e soun1 of %oo1 ho=e ai0con1itione0 o0 auto=obile at 8$ feetG ($ 7EEhibit B8-AB:.
Thus the i=pa0tial an1 ob@ecti,e e,i1ence points to the soun1 e=itte1 b4 the appellee?s substation
t0ansfo0=e0s bein% of =uch hi%he0 le,el than the a=bient soun1 of the localit4. The =easu0e=ents taFen
b4 )0. Al=onte' Aho is not connecte1 Aith eithe0 pa0t4' an1 is a ph4sician to boot 7unliFe appellee?s
elect0ical supe0inten1ent Buenafe:' appea0 =o0e 0eliable. The conclusion =ust be that' cont0a04 to the
fin1in% of the t0ial cou0t' the noise continuousl4 e=itte1' 1a4 an1 ni%ht' constitutes an actionable nuisance
fo0 Ahich the appellant is entitle1 to 0elief' b4 0eCui0in% the appellee co=pan4 to a1opt the necessa04
=easu0es to 1ea1en o0 0e1uce the soun1 at the plaintiff?s house' b4 0eplacin% the inte0linF Ai0e fence Aith
a pa0tition =a1e of soun1 abso0bent =ate0ial' since the 0elocation of the substation is =anifestl4
i=p0acticable an1 Aoul1 be p0e@u1icial to the custo=e0s of the Elect0ic Co=pan4 Aho a0e bein% se0,ice1
f0o= the substation.
Appellee co=pan4 insists that as the plaintiff?s oAn e,i1ence 7EEhibit BNN-(KcLB: the intensit4 of the soun1
7as =easu0e1 b4 )0. Al=onte: insi1e appellant?s house is onl4 9& to 9( 1ecibels at the consultation 0oo='
an1 9" to 98 1ecibels Aithin the t0eat=ent 0oo=' the appellant ha1 no %0oun1 to co=plain. This a0%u=ent
is not =e0ito0ious' because the noise at the be10oo=s Aas 1ete0=ine1 to be a0oun1 &9-&8 1ecibels' an1
the =e1ical e,i1ence is to the effect that the basic 0oot of the appellant?s ail=ents Aas his inabilit4 to
sleep 1ue to the incessant noise Aith conseCuent i00itation' thus AeaFenin% his constitution an1 =aFin%
hi= eas4 p0e4 to patho%enic %e0=s that coul1 not othe0Aise affect a pe0son of no0=al health.
-n -entuc(! and .est /irginia Co., 'nc. vs. nderson' 8& S.. !8(' the a,e0a%e of th0ee 0ea1in%s alon%
the plaintiff?s fence Aas onl4 99 1ecibels but' because the soun1 f0o= the sub-station Aas inte0=inable
an1 =onotonous' the cou0t autho0i6e1 an in@unction an1 1a=a%es. -n the p0esent case' the th0ee 0ea1in%s
alon% the p0ope0t4 line a0e 8;' 89 an1 88 1ecibels. Plaintiff?s case is =anifestl4 st0on%e0.
Appellee co=pan4 a0%ues that the plaintiff shoul1 not be hea01 to co=plain because the soun1 le,el at
the No0th Gene0al 3ospital' Ahe0e silence is obse0,e1' is e,en hi%he0 than at his 0esi1ence. This
co=pa0ison lacFs basis because it has not been establishe1 that the hospital is locate1 in su00oun1in%s
si=ila0 to the 0esi1ential 6one Ahe0e the plaintiff li,e1 o0 that the soun1 at the hospital is si=ila0l4
=onotonous an1 ceaseless as the soun1 e=itte1 b4 the sub-station.
Constancio So0ia testifie1 that BThe Aa4 the t0ansfo0=e0s a0e built' the hu==in% soun1 cannot be
a,oi1e1B. On this testi=on4' the co=pan4 e=phasi6es that the substation Aas const0ucte1 fo0 public
con,enience. A1=ittin% that the soun1 cannot be eli=inate1' the0e is no p0oof that it cannot be 0e1uce1.
That the sub-station is nee1e1 fo0 the Me0alco to be able to se0,e Aell its custo=e0s is no 0eason'
hoAe,e0' Ah4 it shoul1 be ope0ate1 to the 1et0i=ent an1 1isco=fo0t of othe0s.
;
The fact that the Me0alco ha1 0ecei,e1 no co=plaint althou%h it ha1 been ope0atin% he0eabouts fo0 the
past 8$ 4ea0s Aith substations si=ila0 to the one in cont0o,e0s4 is not a ,ali1 a0%u=ent. The absence of
suit neithe0 lessens the co=pan4?s liabilit4 un1e0 the laA no0 AeaFens the 0i%ht of othe0s a%ainst it to
1e=an1 thei0 @ust 1ue.
As to the 1a=a%es cause1 b4 the noise' appellant +elasco' hi=self a ph4sician' clai=e1 that the noise' as
a p0ecipitatin% facto0' has cause1 hi= anEiet4 neu0osis' Ahich' in tu0n' p0e1ispose1 hi= to' o0 is
conco=itant Aith' the othe0 ail=ents Ahich he Aas suffe0in% at the ti=e of the t0ial' na=el4' p4eloneph0itis'
u0ete0itis an1 othe0s2 that these 0esulte1 in the loss of his p0ofessional inco=e an1 0e1uce1 his life
eEpectanc4. The b0eaF1oAn of his clai=s is as folloAsG
Loss of p0ofessional ea0nin%s P;'&$$
)a=a%e to life eEpectanc4 !$'$$$
Mo0al 1a=a%es $$'$$$
Loss 1ue to f0ust0ation of sale of house ;8'$$$
EEe=pla04 1a=a%es ;8'$$$
Atto0ne4s? fees 98'$$$
A host of eEpe0t Aitnesses an1 ,olu=inous =e1ical lite0atu0e' labo0ato04 fin1in%s an1 statistics of inco=e
Ae0e int0o1uce1 in suppo0t of the abo,e clai=s.
The =e1ical e,i1ence of plaintiff?s 1octo0s p0epon1e0ates o,e0 the eEpe0t e,i1ence fo0 1efen1ant-
appellee' not =e0el4 because of its positi,e cha0acte0 but also because the ph4sicians p0esente1 b4
plaintiff ha1 actuall4 t0eate1 hi=' Ahile the 1efense eEpe0ts ha1 not 1one so. Thus the e,i1ence of the
latte0 Aas to a la0%e eEtent con@ectu0al. That appellant?s ph4sical ail=ents shoul1 be 1ue to infectious
o0%anis=s 1oes not alte0 the fact that the loss of sleep' i00itation an1 tension 1ue to eEcessi,e noise
AeaFene1 his constitution an1 =a1e hi= eas4 p0e4 to the infection.
Re%a01in% the a=ount of 1a=a%es clai=e1 b4 appellant' it is plain that the sa=e a0e eEa%%e0ate1. To
be%in Aith' the alle%e1 loss of ea0nin%s at the 0ate of P#'$$$ pe0 annu= is p0e1icate1 on the -nte0nal
Re,enue assess=ent' EEhibit B55-B' Ahe0ein appellant Aas foun1 to ha,e un1ecla0e1 inco=e of
P!'""!.;$ in a11itional to his 1ecla0e1 %0oss inco=e of P$'#(8.$$ fo0 #89. The0e is no co=petent
shoAin%' hoAe,e0' that the sou0ce of such un1ecla0e1 inco=e Aas appellant?s p0ofession. -n fact' the
infe0ence Aoul1 be to the cont0a04' fo0 his %0oss inco=e f0o= the p0e,ious 4ea0s #8 to #8" KEEhibits
B55- 71:B to B55- 7f:BL Aas onl4 P!'$!8.$$' P8'!&$.$$ an1 P(';$.$$' 0especti,el4' an a,e0a%e of
P('$$$.$$ pe0 annu=. Mo0eo,e0' Ahile his #9( an1 #9! inco=e Aas la0%e0 7P#'##8.$$ an1
P'#$$.$$:' it appea0s that P8'$$$ the0eof Aas the appellant?s annual sala04 f0o= the 5ue6on Me=o0ial
>oun1ation' Ahich Aas not 0eall4 connecte1 Aith the usual ea0nin%s 1e0i,e1 f0o= p0actice as a ph4sician.
Consi1e0in%' the0efo0e' his actual ea0nin%s' the clai=e1 =o0al 1a=a%es of P$$'$$$.$$ a0e utte0l4
1isp0opo0tionate. The alle%e1 losses fo0 sho0tenin% of appellant?s' life eEpectanc4 a0e not onl4 inflate1 but
speculati,e.
As to the 1e=an1 fo0 eEe=pla04 o0 puniti,e 1a=a%es' the0e appea0s no a1eCuate basis fo0 thei0 aAa01.
.hile the appellee Manila Elect0ic Co=pan4 Aas con,icte1 fo0 e0ectin% the substation in Cuestion Aithout
pe0=it f0o= the Public Se0,ice Co==ission' .e fin1 0easonable its eEplanation that its officials an1
counsel ha1 o0i%inall4 1ee=e1 that such pe0=it Aas not 0eCui0e1 as the installation Aas autho0i6e1 b4 the
te0=s of its f0anchise 7as a=en1e1 b4 Republic Act No. 8$: 0eCui0in% it to spen1 Aithin 8 4ea0s not less
than fo0t4 =illion pesos fo0 =aintenance an1 a11itions to its elect0ic s4ste=' inclu1in% nee1e1 poAe0
plants an1 substations. Neithe0 the absence of such pe0=it f0o= the Public Se0,ice Co==ission no0 the
lacF of pe0=it f0o= the 5ue6on Cit4 autho0ities 7a pe0=it that Aas subseCuentl4 %0ante1: is inco=patible
Aith the Co=pan4?s %oo1 faith' until the cou0ts finall4 0ule1 that its inte0p0etation of the f0anchise Aas
inco00ect.
The0e a0e' =o0eo,e0' se,e0al facto0s that =iti%ate 1efen1ant?s liabilit4 in 1a=a%es. The fi0st is that the
noise f0o= the substation 1oes not appea0 to be an eEclusi,e causati,e facto0 of plaintiff-appellant?s
illnesses. This is p0o,e1 b4 the ci0cu=stance that no othe0 pe0son in +elasco?s oAn househol1 no0 in his
i==e1iate nei%hbo0hoo1 Aas shoAn to ha,e beco=e sicF 1espite the noise co=plaine1 of. The0e is also
e,i1ence that at the ti=e the plaintiff-appellant appea0s to ha,e been la0%el4 in1ebte1 to ,a0ious c0e1it
institutions' as a 0esult of his unsuccessful %ube0nato0ial ca=pai%n' an1 this cou0t can taFe @u1icial
co%ni6ance of the fact that financial Ao00ies can affect unfa,o0abl4 the 1ebto0?s 1isposition an1 =entalit4.
The othe0 facto0 =ilitatin% a%ainst full 0eco,e04 b4 the petitione0 +elasco in his passi,it4 in the face of the
1a=a%e cause1 to hi= b4 the noise of the substation. Reali6in% as a ph4sician that the latte0 Aas
1istu0bin% o0 1ep0i,in% hi= of sleep an1 affectin% both his ph4sical an1 =ental Aell bein%' he 1i1 not taFe
an4 steps to b0in% action to abate the nuisance o0 0e=o,e hi=self f0o= the affecte1 a0ea as soon as the
1elete0ious effects beca=e noticeable. To e,a1e the= appellant 1i1 not e,en ha,e to sell his house2 he
coul1 ha,e lease1 it an1 0ente1 othe0 p0e=ises fo0 sleepin% an1 =aintainin% his office an1 thus p0ese0,e
his health as o01ina04 p0u1ence 1e=an1e1. -nstea1 he obstinatel4 sta4e1 until his health beca=e %0a,el4
affecte1' appa0entl4 hopin% that he Aoul1 the0eb4 sa11le appellee Aith la0%e 1a=a%es.
The laA in this @u0is1iction is clea0. A0ticle ;;$" p0esc0ibes that BThe pa0t4 suffe0in% loss o0 in@u04 =ust
eEe0cise the 1ili%ence of a %oo1 fathe0 of a fa=il4 to =ini=i6e the 1a=a%es 0esultin% f0o= the act o0
o=ission in CuestionB. This co1al 0ule' Ahich e=bo1ies the p0e,ious @u0isp0u1ence on the point'
"
clea0l4
obli%ates the in@u0e1 pa0t4 to un1e0taFe =easu0es that Aill alle,iate an1 not a%%0a,ate his con1ition afte0
the infliction of the in@u04' an1 places upon hi= the bu01en of eEplainin% Ah4 he coul1 not 1o so. This Aas
not 1one.
Appellant +elasco int0o1uce1 e,i1ence to the effect that he t0ie1 to sell his house to *ose +alencia' *0.' in
Septe=be0' #8"' an1 on a &$ 1a4 option' fo0 P#8'$$$.$$' but that the p0ospecti,e bu4e0 bacFe1 out on
account of his Aife ob@ectin% to the noise of the substation. The0e is no 0eliable e,i1ence' hoAe,e0' hoA
=uch Ae0e appellant?s lot an1 house Ao0th' eithe0 befo0e the option Aas %i,en to +alencia o0 afte0 he
0efuse1 to p0ocee1 Aith the sale o0 e,en 1u0in% the inte0,enin% pe0io1. The eEistence of a p0e,ious offe0
fo0 P;8'$$$.$$' as clai=e1 b4 the plaintiff' Aas not co00obo0ate1 b4 +alencia. .hat +alencia testifie1 to
in his 1eposition is that Ahen the4 Ae0e ne%otiatin% on the p0ice +elasco =entione1 to hi= about an offe0
b4 so=eone fo0 P;8'$$$.$$. The testi=on4 of +alencia p0o,es that in the 1ialo%ue betAeen hi= an1
+elasco' pa0t of the sub@ect of thei0 con,e0sation Aas about the p0io0 offe0' but it 1oes not co00obo0ate o0
p0o,e the 0ealit4 of the offe0 fo0 P;8'$$$.$$. The testi=on4 of +elasco on this point' stan1in% alone' is
not c0e1ible enou%h' Ahat Aith his penchant fo0 =etapho0 an1 eEa%%e0ation' as p0e,iousl4 a1,e0te1 to. -t
is u0%e1 in appellant?s b0ief' alon% the lines of his oAn testi=on4' that since one 7: t0ansfo0=e0 Aas
=easu0e1 b4 Aitness' *i=ene6 Aith a noise intensit4 of 9(.; 1ecibels at a 1istance of "$.9! =ete0s' the
tAo 7;: t0ansfo0=e0s of the substation shoul1 c0eate an intensit4 of #9.9 1ecibels at the sa=e 1istance. -f
this Ae0e t0ue' then the 0esi1ence of the plaintiff is =o0e nois4 than the noisiest spot at the Nia%a0a >alls'
Ahich 0e%iste0s onl4 #; 1ecibels 7EEhibit B8-AB:.
Since the0e is no e,i1ence upon Ahich to co=pute an4 loss o0 1a=a%e alle%e1l4 incu00e1 b4 the plaintiff
b4 the f0ust0ation of the sale on account of the noise' his clai= the0efo0e Aas co00ectl4 1isalloAe1 b4 the
t0ial cou0t. -t =a4 be a11e1 that the0e is no shoAin% of an4 fu0the0 atte=pts on the pa0t of appellant to
1ispose of the house' an1 this fact suffices to 0aise 1oubts as to Ahethe0 he t0ul4 inten1e1 to 1ispose of it.
3e ha1 no actual nee1 to 1o so in o01e0 to escape 1ete0io0ation of his health' as he0etofo0e note1.
)espite the Ai1e %ap betAeen Ahat Aas clai=e1 an1 Ahat Aas p0o,e1' the plaintiff is entitle1 to 1a=a%es
fo0 the anno4ance an1 a1,e0se effects suffe0e1 b4 hi= since the substation sta0te1 functionin% in *anua04'
#89. Consi1e0in% all the ci0cu=stances 1isclose1 b4 the 0eco01' as Aell as appellant?s failu0e to =ini=i6e
the 1elete0ious influences f0o= the substation' this Cou0t is of the opinion that an aAa01 in the a=ount of
P;$'$$$.$$' b4 Aa4 of =o1e0ate an1 =o0al 1a=a%es up to the p0esent' is 0easonable. Reco,e04 of
atto0ne4?s fees an1 liti%ation eEpenses in the su= of P8'$$$.$$ is also
@ustifie1 H the factual an1 le%al issues Ae0e int0icate 7the t0ansc0ipt of the steno%0aphic notes is about
8'$$$ pa%es' si1e f0o= an i=p0essi,e nu=be0 of eEhibits:' an1 0aise1 fo0 the fi0st ti=e in this @u0is1iction.
9
The last issue is Ahethe0 the Cit4 En%inee0 of 5ue6on Cit4' Anastacio A. A%an' a co-1efen1ant' =a4 be
hel1 soli1a0il4 liable Aith Me0alco.
A%an Aas inclu1e1 as a pa0t4 1efen1ant because he alle%e1l4 7: 1i1 not 0eCui0e the Me0alco to secu0e a
buil1in% pe0=it fo0 the const0uction of the substation2 7;: e,en 1efen1e1 its const0uction b4 not insistin% on
such buil1in% pe0=it2 an1 7": 1i1 not initiate its 0e=o,al o0 1e=olition an1 the c0i=inal p0osecution of the
officials of the Me0alco.
The 0eco01 1oes not suppo0t these alle%ations. On the fi0st plea' it Aas not A%an?s 1ut4 to 0eCui0e the
Me0alco to secu0e a pe0=it befo0e the const0uction but fo0 Me0alco to appl4 fo0 it' as pe0 Section .
O01inance No. 8"$' of 5ue6on Cit4. The secon1 alle%ation is not t0ue' because A%an A0ote the Me0alco
0eCui0in% it to sub=it the plan an1 to pa4 pe0=it fees 7T.s.n.' 9 *anua04 #&$' pa%es ;$!-;$!;:. On the
thi01 alle%ation' no laA o0 o01inance has been cite1 specif4in% that it is the cit4 en%inee0?s 1ut4 to initiate
the 0e=o,al o0 1e=olition of' o0 fo0 the c0i=inal p0osecution of' those pe0sons Aho a0e 0esponsible fo0 the
nuisance. Republic Act 8"(' Section ;9 71:' 0elie1 upon b4 the plaintiff' 0eCui0es an o01e0 b4' o0 p0e,ious
app0o,al of' the =a4o0 fo0 the cit4 en%inee0 to cause o0 o01e0 the 0e=o,al of buil1in%s o0 st0uctu0es in
,iolation of laA o0 o01inances' but the =a4o0 coul1 not be eEpecte1 to taFe action because he Aas of the
belief' as he testifie1' that the soun1 B1i1 not ha,e an4 effect on his bo14.B
>OR T3E >OREGO-NG REASONS' the appeale1 1ecision is he0eb4 0e,e0se1 in pa0t an1 affi0=e1 in
pa0t. The 1efen1ant-appellee Manila Elect0ic Co=pan4 is he0eb4 o01e0e1 to eithe0 t0ansfe0 its substation
at South ) an1 South & St0eets' )ili=an' 5ue6on Cit4' o0 taFe app0op0iate =easu0es to 0e1uce its noise
at the p0ope0t4 line betAeen the 1efen1ant co=pan4?s co=poun1 an1 that of the plaintiff-appellant to an
a,e0a%e of fo0t4 79$: to fift4 78$: 1ecibels Aithin #$ 1a4s f0o= finalit4 of this 1ecision2 an1 to pa4 the sai1
plaintiff-appellant P;$'$$$.$$ in 1a=a%es an1 P8'$$$.$$ fo0 atto0ne4?s fees. -n all othe0 0espects' the
appeale1 1ecision is affi0=e1. No costs.
Concepcion, C.#., Ma(alintal, 1aldivar, "ernando, Teehan(ee, Barredo, /illa$or and Ma(asiar, ##.,
concur.
Di2on and Castro, ##., are on leave.

>ootnotes
< )eci1e1 in "$ Septe=be0 #&$ 7$# Phil. &$":.
>0ance' Cou0 1e Cassation' )ecisions of' # Ap0il #$8 M ;9 *ul4 #$!2 Cha=b0e 1es
ReCuetes' 8 )ec. #$9. Cf. "" A=. *u0. Nuisances' Section 9(' pa%es ""$-"""G BNo one
is entitle1 to absolute Cuiet in the en@o4=ent of his p0ope0t42 he =a4 onl4 insist upon a
1e%0ee of Cuietness consistent Aith the stan1a01 of co=fo0t p0e,ailin% in the localit4 in
Ahich he 1Aells. The location an1 su00oun1in%s' =ust be consi1e0e1' since noise Ahich
a=ounts to a nuisance in one localit4 =a4 be enti0el4 p0ope0 in anothe0. The cha0acte0
an1 =a%nitu1e of the in1ust04 o0 business co=plaine1 of an1 the =anne0 in Ahich it is
con1ucte1 =ust also be taFen into consi1e0ation' an1 so =ust the cha0acte0 an1 ,olu=e
of the noise' the ti=e an1 1u0ation of its occu00ence' the nu=be0 of people affecte1 b4 it'
an1 all the facts an1 ci0cu=stances of the case.B
; .heat Cul,e0t Co=pan4 ,s. *enFins' ;9& D4. "#' 88 S.. ;1. 92 9& C. *. &!"' ($8.
" )e Castel,i ,s. Cia. Gene0al 1e Tabacos' 9# Phil. ##&2 Lasa= ,s. S=ith' 9 Phil. &8(2
)e Guia ,s. Manila Elect0ic M Li%ht Co.' 9$ Phil. ($&.
9 Ci,il Co1e of the Philippines' A0ticle ;;$!' No. .