AC Enterprises vs.

Frabelle Properties
G.R. No. 166744
Nov. 02, 2006

DOCTRINE:
An action incapable of pecuniary estimation is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
RTC as provided in Batas Pambansa Bilang (B.P. Blg.) 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691.

FACTS:
Petitioner AC Enterprises, Inc. (ACEI) owns the 10-storey Feliza Building located along
Herrera Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City. The building was subdivided into commercial/office
units which were leased to private persons and entities. There are 36 blowers from 18 air-
cooled type airconditioning units in the building, four blowers on each floor, from the 2nd to the
10th floors. Respondent Frabelle Properties Corporation (FPC), formerly FTL & Sons
Development Corporation, is the developer of Frabella I Condominium (Frabella I), a 29-storey
commercial/residential condominium located at 109 Rada Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City. It
owned some units in the condominium which it leased to its tenants.
The exhaust of the blowers from the airconditioning units at the Feliza Building were
directed towards the rear of Frabella I. Respondent wrote petitioner demanding that the latter
abate the daily continuous, intense and ''unbearable noise" and the hot air blast coming from the
36 blowers in the Feliza Building. Petitioner rejected the demand. Respondent requested that
the 36 blowers of Feliza Building be tested by the NCR Environmental Management Bureau
(EMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). It received a report
from the EMB that the noise generated by the blowers of Feliza Building is beyond the legal
allowable level under Section 78(b) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 984, as amended. Despite
repeated demands, petitioner refused to act on the matter.
Frabelle I Condominum Corporation, through counsel, Ang & Associates, as
complainant, filed a complaint against petitioner with the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) for
the abatement of noise and/or air pollution and damages with a plea for injunctive relief. While
the case was pending, respondent, through its Vice-President, wrote Dr. Maria Leonor B.
Soledad, City Health Officer of Makati City, requesting her intervention to order petitioner to
abate the noise and hot air coming from the blowers of the Feliza Building. Dr. Soledad replied
that a panel must be formed to settle the matter. Respondent requested Makati City Mayor
Jejomar C. Binay not to renew or to cancel the Mayor's License and Business Permits of Feliza
Building and to compel petitioner to comply with the law. A panel from the EMB conducted tests
on the 36 blowers of Feliza Building and submitted its Investigation Report, stating that the
passing of vehicles along the street and the blowers of nearby building contributed to the
ambient noise quality in the area. The report 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.
Engr. Morales informed respondent that based on the result of investigation conducted
by the DENR Management Bureau on Sound Pressure Levels (SPL) measured on the different
sampling stations, the excess in the noise quality standard within the vicinity does not come
from the airconditioning system with 36 blowers of Feliza Building alone; there were other
prevailing factors to consider," which is beyond the control of said building. Respondent then
wrote Engr. Morales seeking clarification, wanting to find out why the matter should be referred
to the EMB when the latter had already endorsed the matter to the City of Makati. Engr. Morales
insisted on the report of the EMB and and dared it to go to court if it was not satisfied with the
report and his resolution of the matter.
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 of Malabon
City against petitioner. After trial and hearing, judgment was rendered against the petitioner and
for the respondent. Petitioner moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the following grounds:
(1) lack of jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the complaint; (2) the complaint
does not state a cause of action; and (3) the action is barred by res judicata, litis pendentia, and
forum shopping.
Petitioner averred that it was the Makati City Government that had jurisdiction over the
complaint pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160. It also pointed out that DENR
Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 30 issued on June 30, 1992 devolved to the local government
units the power to determine matters pertaining to environmental management such as: (a)
enforcement of pollution control and environmental protection laws, rules and regulations; (b)
abatement of noise and other forms of nuisance; and (c) implementation of cease and desist
orders issued by the PAB. It maintained that respondent had filed a similar action before the
Makati City Government concerning the same issues presented in the complaint and that the
City Building Official, Engr. Morales, had ruled in his letter dated July 19, 2002 that the excess
in the noise quality standard within the vicinity was caused not only by the air-conditioning
system of Feliza Building but also by other prevailing factors which were beyond its control.
Respondent had failed to appeal the resolution; hence, the resolution of the City Building Official
barred the complaint.
Respondent averred that the provisions of R.A. No. 7160 cited by petitioner apply not to
abatements of nuisance but to pollution control cases. The local government units (LGUs) are
only granted administrative and executive powers, not judicial or quasi-judicial functions to
abate a nuisance. While admitting that DENR A.O. No. 30 devolved to the LGUs the function of
abating noise and other forms of nuisance as defined by law, plaintiff posited that said A.O. is
not a law and the DENR cannot deprive the court of its jurisdiction over the abatement of
nuisance.
The court denied the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner and the latter sought
relief from the CA via a petition for certiorari. The CA rendered judgment denying the petition.
The CA ruled that the action of respondent was one for the abatement of a nuisance within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. It agreed with respondents' contention that, under R.A. No.
7160, the LGUs are not divested of its jurisdiction over an action for the abatement of a
nuisance. Section 17, sub-paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) in relation to (b)(4) of the law pertain to the
enforcement of pollution control law and not to the abatement of nuisance. While DENR A.O.
No. 30 devolved to the LGUs the abatement of noise and other forms of nuisance as defined by
law, this does not necessarily deprive the courts to hear and decide actions pertaining thereon.
It was thus proper for respondent to bring the case before the court since it had already sought
the intercession of Barangay San Lorenzo, Makati Commercial Estate Corporation (MACEA),
DENR, and the Makati City Government to no avail. The appellate court resolved to deny
petitioner's motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the lower court has jurisdiction over the instant case, considering that the
exclusive authority to determine the issues involved in the case a quo lies with the City of
Makati.– YES

RULING:
As gleaned from the material averments of the complaint as well as the character of the
relief prayed for by respondent in its complaint before the RTC, the petition is one for the judicial
abatement of a private nuisance, more specifically the noise generated by the blowers of the
airconditioning system of the Feliza Building owned by petitioner, with a plea for a writ of
preliminary and permanent injunction, plus damages. Such action of respondent is incapable of
pecuniary estimation because the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum
of money. An action incapable of pecuniary estimation is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
RTC as provided in Batas Pambansa Bilang (B.P. Blg.) 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691.

Art. 694. A nuisance is any act., omission, establishment, business, condition of

property, or anything else which:
(1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or
(2) Annoys or offends the senses; or
(3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or
(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street,
or any body of water; or
(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property.

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
his property, or his comfort. According to Article 695 of the Civil Code, a nuisance may be either
public or private:

Art. 695. Nuisance is either public or private. A public nuisance affects a community or
neighborhood or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the
annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals may be unequal. A private nuisance is
one that is not included in the foregoing definition.

A private nuisance has been defined as one which violates only private rights and
produces damages to but one or a few persons. 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. It is an unreasonable interference with the right common to the general public.

A person injured by a private nuisance may abate it as provided in Article 706:

 Art. 706. Any person injured by a private nuisance may abate it by removing, or if
necessary by destroying the thing which constitutes the nuisance, without committing a
breach of the peace or doing unnecessary injury. However, it is indispensable that the
procedure for extrajudicial abatement of a public nuisance by a private person be
followed.

A private nuisance action is the remedy for an invasion of a property right. On the other
hand, the action for the abatement of a public nuisance should be commenced by the city or
municipality. A private person may institute an action for the abatement of a public nuisance in
cases wherein he suffered a special injury of a direct and substantial character other than that-
which the general public shares. The district health officer shall determine whether or not
abatement, without judicial proceedings, is the best remedy against a public nuisance.
The PAB has no primary jurisdiction over the noise complained of by ihe respondent.
The resolution of the issue before the RTC, which is whether the noise complained of is
actionable nuisance, does not require any special technical knowledge, expertise and
experience of the PAB or even of Makati City requiring the determination of technical and
intricate matters of fact. Indeed, the PAB dismissed the complaint of the Frabelle I
Condominium Corporation declaring that, based on the pleadings before it and the evidence of
the parties, the case is more of an abatement of a nuisance under the New Civil Code and
DENR Order No. 30, Series of 1992. It declared that it was not a pollution case. Rule III, Section
IV of PAB Resolution 1-C, Series of 1997 as amended, which categorically states that "Except
where such would constitute a pollution case, local government units shall have the power to
abate a nuisance within their respective areas pursuant to the Republic Act No. 386 (Civil Code
of the Philippines), Republic Act 7160 (the Local Government Code), Presidential Decree 856
(the Code on Sanitation of the Philippines), DENR Department Administrative Order No. 30,
Series of 1992 and other pertinent laws, rules and regulations. "The cases referred to in Section
6 of P.D. No. 984 are as follows:
(e) Issue orders or decisions to compel compliance with the provisions of this Decree
and its implementing rules and regulations only after proper notice and hearing.
(f) Make, alter or modify orders requiring the discontinuance of pollution specifying the
conditions and the time within such discontinuance must be accomplished.
(g) Issue, renew or deny permits, under such conditions as it may determine to be
reasonable, for the prevention and abatement of pollution, for the discharge of sewage,
industrial waste, or for the installation or operation of sewage works and industrial disposal
system or parts thereof: Provided, however, That the Commission, by rules and regulations,
may require subdivisions, condominium, hospitals, public buildings and other similar human
settlements to put up appropriate central sewerage system and sewage treatment works, except
that no permits shall be required of any new sewage works or changes to or extensions of
existing works that discharge only domestic or sanitary wastes from a single residential building
provided with septic tanks or their equivalent. The Commission may impose reasonable fees
and charges for the issuance or renewal of all permits herein required.

xxx
 (j) Serve as arbitrator for the determination of reparations, or restitution of the damages
and losses resulting from pollution.
(k) Deputize in writing or request assistance of appropriate government agencies or
instrumentalities for the purpose of enforcing this Decree and its implementing rules and
regulations and the orders and decision of the Commission.

xxx

(p) Exercise such powers and perform such other functions as may be necessary to
carry out its duties and responsibilities under this Decree.

Under Section 447(a)(3)(i) of R.A. No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government
Code, the Sangguniang Panglungsod is empowered to enact ordinances declaring, preventing
or abating noise and other forms of nuisance. It bears stressing, however, that the Sangguniang
Bayan cannot declare a particular thing as a nuisance per se and order its condemnation. It
does not have the power to find, as a fact, that a particular thing is a nuisance when such thing
is not a nuisance per se; nor can it authorize the extrajudicial condemnation and destruction of
that as a nuisance which in its nature, situation or use is not such. Those things must be
determined and resolved in the ordinary courts of law. Section 17 of R.A. No. 7160 provides that
local government units shall discharge the functions and responsibilities of national agencies
and offices devolved to them pursuant to the law.
What were devolved by the DENR to the LGUs under DENR Administrative Order No.
30 dated June 30, 1992, in relation to R.A. No. 7160, were the regulatory functions/duties of the
National Pollution Control Commission (NPCC) which were absorbed and integrated by the
EMB, as provided in Title No. XIV, Chapter 2, Section 17 of the 1987 Administrative Code.
However, the DENR exercises administrative supervision and control over the LGUs
Since the PAB had no jurisdiction over the complaint and the dismissal was without
prejudice, respondent's action before the RTC was not barred by res judicata or litis pendentia.
The decision of the PAB was not a decision on the merits of the case. Consequently, the
contention of petitioner that respondent is guilty of forum shopping has no factual basis.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against
the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.