When noise becomes actionable for damages under Philippine law
Under the Civil Code, nuisance includes an act or condition of property that annoys offends the senses, or hinders or impairs the use of property. It may form the basis for an award of damages in a civil case or be abated summarily, or without judicial proceedings.
Noise as nuisance
Noise may be considered as a nuisance, though not all the time, as recently held by the Supreme Court in Couples for Christ (CFC) School of the Morning Star, et al. v. Malonda, et al.
In this case, respondents have been residing in the subdivision where petitioner Couples for Christ School of the Morning Star (CFC-SMS) has been established.
According to respondents, loud noise emanated from CFC-SMS, where among others, musical instruments were played, teachers relayed instructions through megaphones and microphones, students constantly ran, clapped, and cheered. This noise supposedly disturbed respondents’ sleep and way of living, day and night.
Despite the local government and respondents’ coordinated efforts, the noise persisted. Respondents were then constrained to file a complaint for damages with application for a temporary restraining order before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Necessary permits, clearances, measures
In seeking the RTC’s dismissal of the complaint, CFC-SMS argued that, among others, other residents of the subdivision never complained about the supposed noise and even supported its activities.
Moreover, relevant governmental agencies granted the necessary clearances and permits to CFC-SMS, which, in any case, undertook measures to minimize the noise.
These measures include erecting high fences, maintaining plants, using small speaker boxes, and facilitating its class and other learning activities only between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays.
The RTC dismissed respondents’ complaint. It found that CFC-SMS had never intended to prejudice respondents and implemented measures to reduce the noise complained of.
Respondents also failed to prove injuries supposedly suffered and amount of loss sustained, on which their claims for actual damages were based.
Physical discomfort and annoyance
Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the RTC’s decision. It found that the noise emanating from CFC-SMS’s premises constituted actionable nuisance for causing physical discomfort and annoyance to the subdivision’s residents.
Meanwhile, its measures failed to minimize this noise, which was caused by social functions held in its multi-purpose hall and thus, was not limited to school activities.
CFC-SMS then filed the instant appeal, which the Supreme Court granted by reversing and setting aside the Court of Appeals’ decision.
SC decision
According to the Supreme Court, while living in a densely populated country, such as the Philippines, may increase the community’s sensitivity to noise, it may not always be deemed actionable nuisance under the law.
Noise becomes such nuisance only when it is so intense as to endanger or injure the health and safety of others, or annoy or offend the senses.
It should have also exceeded the limits of reasonable adjustment to the conditions of the locality, and the needs of the one making the noise to the needs of the listener.
Noise may be characterized as nuisance, not solely because of its intensity and volume; it should annoy, and cause physical discomfort to, a person of ordinary sensibilities, and render adjacent property less comfortable and valuable.
Determining whether such nuisance exists depends on the circumstances and conditions of each case, including, among others, the improvements or measures introduced by the supposedly offending entity or person to mitigate the noise, allowable noise levels, and reliability of the noise pollution tests conducted.
Thus, it is not based on some fixed standard.
In this case, the noise emanating from CFC-SMS is academic noise incidental to, and reasonably expected of, a school’s operations, and is within the allowed level.
Moreover, CFC-SMS immediately implemented measures to abate the noise, such as, among others, renovating its chapel, increasing the height of its perimeter fence, and planting additional trees as noise buffers.
