AC Enterprises Inc. v. Frabelle Properties Corporation Inc.

G.R. No. 166744, November 2, 2006

Facts:
Petitioner AC Enterprises owns Feliza building which is subdivided into
commercial/office units which were leased to private persons and entities. Respondent
Frabelle Properties Corp, on the other hand, is the developer of Frabella I
Condominium, owned some units in the condominium and leased these units to its
tenants. The exhaust of the 36 blowers from the air-conditioning units at Feliza Building
were directed towards the rear of Frabella I. Respondent wrote petitioner demanding
the latter to abate the continuous, intense and unbearable noise and the hot air blast
coming from the blowers in the Feliza Building. After several demands, respondent
requested that the 36 blowers be tested by the NCR Environmental management
Bureau (EMB) of the DENR which confirmed that the noise generated by the blowers of
Feliza Building is beyond the legal allowable lever under Section 78(b) of P.D. 984.
Even after several tests by the EMB, the results were the same. Despite repeated
demands, petitioner refused to act on the matter.
Frabelle Corp. filed a complaint against AC Enterprises with the Pollution Adjudication
Board (PAB) for the abatement of noise, noise pollution and air pollution and damages
with plea for injunctive relief. A report from the PAB stated that since DENR
Administrative Order No. 30 devolved the functions of the DENR on the abatement of
noise nuisance to the Local Government Unit, the case should be endorsed to the City
Government of Makati for appropriate action. EMB forwarded the report to Engr.
Morales who stated that there were other prevailing factors in the noise quality standard
and advised that further inquiry or anything involving a sound environmental process
which is not sanctioned in their office be addressed directly to EMB.
Respondent filed a complaint for the abatement of nuisance with damages with prayer
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary and permanent injunction before the RTC.
Petitioner moved for the dismissal of the complaint claiming that it was Makati City
Government that had jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to R.A. 7160. RTC denied
the petitioner’s motion to dismiss from the averments of the complaint, there was an
urgency of abating the noise and air pollution generated by the blowers of petitioner’s
air conditioning system such that respondent prayed for injunctive relief. Petitioner
repeatedly asserts that the City of Makati has primary jurisdiction of the complaint. The
court denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner and the latter sought
relief from the CA which was also denied.

Issue:
WON the noise is a nuisance to be resolved by the courts

Ruling:
YES. The noise is a nuisance to be resolved by the courts in due course of
proceedings. Noise become actionable only when it passes the limits of reasonable
adjustment to the conditions of the locality and the needs of their maker to the needs of
the listener. The determining factor is not the intensity or volume, it is the noise that 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.
The petition is one for the judicial abatement of private nuisance. In the case of Tatel v.
Municipality of Virac, the Court ruled that a simple suit for abatement of a nuisance is
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, nor RTC. LGUs may
conduct inspections, without doing damage, after due notice to the owners of buildings
to ascertain compliance with the noise standards under the law and order them to
comply. If they fail to do so, may suspend or cancel any building permits or clearance
certificates issued by it after due hearing as required by P.D. No. 984. However, the
LGUs have no power to declare a thing as a nuisance nor can they effect the
extrajudicial abatement of that nuisance. Those cases must be resolved by the courts in
the ordinary course of law.