G.R. No. L-18390 August 6, 1971
PEDRO J. VELASCO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MANILA ELECTRIC CO., WILLIAM SNYDER, its President; JOHN COTTON and HERMENEGILDO B. REYES, its Vice-Presidents; and ANASTACIO A. AGAN, City Engineer of Quezon City, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiff-appellant Pedro J. Velasco owned a house on a lot within a Quezon City “first residence” zone. The Manila Electric Company (Meralco) constructed an electrical substation on an adjacent lot, approximately 10 to 20 meters from Velasco’s house, without a prior building permit. The substation serviced a large number of consumers. A constant sound emanated from the facility. Velasco filed a complaint, alleging the sound constituted a nuisance under Article 694 of the Civil Code, as it injured his health, annoyed his senses, disturbed his sleep and concentration, and lowered his property’s value. He sought abatement of the nuisance and damages. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding the sound was unavoidable and not a nuisance, and that Velasco’s claimed injuries and damages were not adequately proven.

ISSUE

Whether the noise emitted by Meralco’s electrical substation constitutes an actionable nuisance warranting its abatement and the award of damages.

RULING

Yes, the noise constitutes an actionable nuisance. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision in part. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that while individuals must bear customary inconveniences from proximity to others, liability arises when the disturbance exceeds this reasonable level. The Court, drawing from American jurisprudence due to the shared origin of Philippine nuisance law, established that noise can be an actionable nuisance if it injuriously affects the health or comfort of ordinary people in the vicinity to an unreasonable extent. The test is objective, focusing on the ordinary person, not a peculiarly sensitive individual. The Court considered the circumstances: the substation’s location in a first-residence district, the continuous nature of the noise, and its impact on Velasco’s ordinary comfort. The Court found the disturbance surpassed the reasonable level of inconvenience expected in such a locality. Consequently, Meralco was held liable for creating a nuisance. The Court ordered Meralco to either transfer the substation or implement measures to reduce the noise to 40-50 decibels at the property line within 90 days. It also awarded Velasco P20,000 in damages and P5,000 in attorney’s fees. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the case against the City Engineer, finding no dereliction of duty, as his actions concerning the permit were in accordance with ordinance requirements.