AC Enterprises, Inc. vs. Frabelle Properties Corp.

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

SCRA Citation:  506 SCRA 625

DOCTRINE: Private and public nuisance; definition – The term “nuisance” is so comprehensive that it has been applied to almost all ways which have interfered with the rights of the citizens, either in person, property, the enjoyment of property, or his comfort; A private nuisance is one which violates only private rights and produces damage to but one or a few persons while a nuisance is public when it interferes with the exercise of public right by directly encroaching on public property or by causing a common injury, an unreasonable interference with the right common to the general public. In this case, the noise generated by an airconditioning system is considered a private nuisance.

Noise emanating from air-con units not nuisance per se – 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; Injury to a particular person in a peculiar position or of especially sensitive characteristics will not render the noise an actionable nuisance. Whether or not the noise is a nuisance is an issue to be resolved by the courts.

Test to determine noise as a nuisance – The test is whether rights of property, of health or of comfort are so injuriously affected by the noise in question that the sufferer is subjected to a loss [i.e. Actual Physical Discomfort]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 involve the emission of noise although ordinary care is taken to confine it within 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.

Action to abate private nuisance; incapable of pecuniary estiation – an action to abate private nuisance, even wehere the plaintiff asks for damages is one incapable of pecuniary estimation

FACTS: AC enterprises (Petitioner) is a corporation owns a 10-storey building in Makati City. Frabelle (Respondent) is a condominium corporation who's condominium development is located behind petitioner. Respondent complained of the 'unbearable” noise emanating from the blower of the air-conditioning units of petitioner.

ISSUES:

(1) Is it a nuisance as to be resolved only by the courts in the due course of proceedings or a nuisance per se?

(2) Is an action for abatement of a private nuisance, more specifically noise generated by the blower of an air-conditioning system, even if the plaintiff prays for damages, one incapable of pecuniary estimation?

(3) What is the determining factor when noise alone is the cause of complaint?

HELD:

(1) It is a nuisance to be resolved only by the courts in the due course of proceedings; the noise is not a nuisance per se. Noise becomes actionable only whenn 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. Injury to a particular person in a peculiar position or of especially sensitive characteristics will not render the house an actionable nuisance–– in the conditions, of present living, noise seems inseparable from the conduct of many necessary occupations.

(2) Yes, the action is one incapable of pecuniary estimation because the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money.

(3) The determining factor 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.