Case Summary (G.R. No. 166744)
Administrative testing and earlier notices
From 1995 onward respondent sought abatement administratively and obtained multiple EMB noise reports (1995, 1996, 2000, later in 2002 and 2003) that variously indicated that sound pressure levels from the blowers exceeded allowable ambient noise standards under Section 78(b) of PD 984 or that ambient noise in the area had multiple contributors. Petitioner repeatedly rejected demands to abate and did not implement remedial measures.
PAB proceedings and outcome
Frabella I Condominium Corporation (a distinct entity from respondent) filed before the PAB alleging pollution. After hearings and review of technical findings, the PAB dismissed the pollution complaint on jurisdictional grounds, concluding the matter was more properly one of nuisance to be handled by LGUs under PD 984 and DENR A.O. No. 30, and endorsed the issue to the local government unit (Makati City) without prejudice to a pollution case if definite DENR standards were found violated later.
Makati City response and communications
The City Building Official, Engr. Nelson B. Morales, received EMB reports and, by letter (July 19, 2002), indicated that excess ambient noise did not come solely from the Feliza Building and advised that further inquiries should be addressed to the EMB. Respondent sought clarification and additional EMB testing; the City did not issue a formal adjudicatory decision after investigation and the correspondence was not the product of a quasi‑judicial hearing.
RTC complaint and respondent’s reliefs sought
On July 1, 2003 respondent filed a civil action in the RTC (Malabon City) for abatement of nuisance, preliminary and permanent injunction, damages (actual, exemplary), attorney’s fees, and costs. The complaint attached prior demand letters and EMB testing reports and alleged continuing injury to property and business resulting from petitioner’s blowers.
Petitioner’s motion to dismiss and grounds
Petitioner moved to dismiss on: (1) lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction (contending devolution of functions to Makati City under R.A. No. 7160 and DENR A.O. No. 30), (2) failure to state a cause of action, and (3) res judicata/litis pendentia/forum‑shopping (pointing to prior administrative proceedings and a PAB case and the City Building Official’s letter).
RTC ruling on motion to dismiss
The RTC denied the motion to dismiss. It held the complaint sought judicial abatement of a private nuisance and that the RTC had exclusive jurisdiction over actions incapable of pecuniary estimation (abatement/injunction). The court concluded the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies did not bar judicial relief where urgency and irreparable injury were alleged and where the remaining questions were primarily legal once the facts were hypothetically admitted for purposes of the motion. The court also found the City Building Official’s letter was administrative and not a final adjudicatory determination to bar judicial action.
Court of Appeals decision
The CA affirmed the RTC. It held: (1) the action is one for judicial abatement of private nuisance and thus within the RTC’s jurisdiction; (2) R.A. No. 7160 and DENR A.O. No. 30 do not oust court jurisdiction over nuisance cases because LGUs lack power to determine whether a non‑per se nuisance actually exists and effect extrajudicial abatement in the ordinary case; (3) primary jurisdiction/exhaustion of administrative remedies were inapplicable because petitioner’s motion to dismiss admitted the complaint’s facts, leaving legal questions for resolution by the court; (4) the Makati City Building Official’s letter was not a final, quasi‑judicial decision and thus did not constitute res judicata; (5) the PAB dismissal was without prejudice and did not adjudicate the merits, so it neither barred the RTC action nor constituted res judicata or litis pendentia; (6) respondent adequately stated a cause of action for private nuisance and damages based on factual allegations and EMB test results attached to the complaint.
Issues presented to the Supreme Court
Petitioner raised four principal assignments: (I) RTC lacked jurisdiction because the LGU (Makati City) had exclusive authority to abate nuisances and enforce noise control; (II) the issues were factual and therefore required exhaustion of administrative remedies and primary jurisdiction of technical agencies; (III) the suit was barred by res judicata, litis pendentia, and forum‑shopping given prior administrative/PAB/City processes; and (IV) the complaint failed to state a cause of action.
Supreme Court: standard on interlocutory certiorari and scope of review
The Court emphasized that an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss is generally not subject to certiorari; certiorari is limited to correcting grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Ordinarily the remedy is to proceed to trial and litigate the merits, then appeal from final judgment.
Supreme Court: jurisdiction over abatement of nuisance
The Court held the RTC had jurisdiction. A civil action for judicial abatement of private nuisance (an action incapable of pecuniary estimation seeking injunctive relief and abatement) falls within the RTC’s exclusive jurisdiction as provided by BP Blg. 129 (as amended). The nature of the relief sought—abatement and injunction—determines jurisdiction irrespective of which administrative or technical agencies have investigatory or regulatory functions.
Supreme Court: effect of devolution under R.A. 7160 and DENR A.O. No. 30
While R.A. No. 7160 and DENR A.O. No. 30 devolved certain regulatory and enforcement functions (including inspection, ordering compliance with noise standards, and administrative abatement powers) to LGUs, such devolution did not deprive courts of their inherent power to adjudicate whether particular conduct constitutes a nuisance. The Court underscored that LGUs cannot make a factual determination that a thing which is not a nuisance per se is a nuisance in fact and cannot exercise extrajudicial condemnation of property in such cases; those factual determinations are for the ordinary courts.
Supreme Court: on primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies
The Court explained that the doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies do not automatically bar court proceedings where the questions are legal or where immediate judicial relief (e.g., injunction to prevent irreparable injury) is sought. Here, by moving to dismiss, petitioner was deemed to have hypothetically admitted the complaint’s factual averments, leaving only legal issues for the court. Given respondent’s allegations of urgency and irreparable injury, requiring exhaustion of further administrative remedies would have been unjustified.
Supreme Court: res judicata, litis pendentia, and forum‑shopping analysis
The Court found no bar by res judicata or litis pendentia. The City Building Official’s letter was not a final adjudicatory decision resulting from adversarial proceedings and therefore did not preclude court action. The PAB dismissed the prior complaint without prejudice and explicitly endorsed the matter to the LGU; the PAB’s dismissal was for lack of jurisdiction over a nuisance case and did not resolve the merits. Thus the RTC action was not barred and respondent’s filing did not constitute forum‑shopping.
Supreme Court: sufficiency of complaint — cause of action for nuisance and damages
Applying standards for motions to dismiss, the Court held the complaint adequately alleged a cause of action. The elements of a cause of action were present: (1) respondent’s right to the peaceful and comfortable use of its property, (2) petitioner’s obligation to respect that right, and (3) petitioner’s alleged act or omission in sustaining the blowers producing excessive noise and hot air that interfered with enjoyment of property. EMB reports and demand letters appended to the complaint gave sufficient factual basis, and under Rule 16 a motion to dismiss admits the complaint’s factual averments. The complaint also stated damages that were incidental to injunctive relief.
Supreme Court: nuisance law principles applied
The Court reiterated Civil Code definitions (Arts. 694–706) and principles: noise is not a nuisance per se; whether noise constitutes actionable nuisance depends on reasonableness, locality, character of surroundings, and effect on persons of ordinary sensibilities. Administrative nois
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 166744)
Caption, Citation and Nature of Proceeding
- Supreme Court decision reported at 537 Phil. 114, First Division, G.R. No. 166744, November 02, 2006.
- Petition for review on certiorari from the Court of Appeals decision in CA G.R. SP No. 82166 affirming the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon City Order in Civil Case No. 3742-MH that denied petitioner AC Enterprises, Inc.’s (ACEI) Motion to Dismiss; the CA also denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- Core controversy: whether the RTC had jurisdiction to hear a complaint for judicial abatement of nuisance (noise and hot air) and damages brought by Frabelle Properties Corporation (FPC) for alleged nuisance emanating from blowers of ACEI’s Feliza Building; related questions on exhaustion of administrative remedies, primary jurisdiction, res judicata, litis pendentia, forum shopping, and sufficiency of the complaint.
Parties and Properties Involved
- Petitioner: AC Enterprises, Inc. (ACEI), Philippine corporation owning the 10-storey Feliza Building on Herrera Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City; building subdivided into commercial/office units leased to private persons/entities.
- Respondent: Frabelle Properties Corporation (FPC), formerly FTL & Sons Development Corporation, developer/owner of units in Frabella I Condominium, 29-storey commercial/residential building at 109 Rada Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City; Frabella I is managed by Frabella I Condominium Corporation (FCC).
- Spatial relation: Herrera and Rada Streets run parallel; Feliza Building is located at the back of Frabella I, separated by Rodriguez Street (a two-lane road approximately 12 meters wide); the street side of Frabella I is bounded by the Thailand Embassy.
Factual Allegations (Noise and Hot Air Nuisance)
- Feliza Building’s airconditioning system served by 18 air-cooled units with 36 blowers (4 blowers per floor from 2nd to 10th floors); blowers are externally positioned and aesthetically covered by vertical concrete baffles; exhaust directed toward Frabella I.
- Alleged effects: when system is turned on, many or all blowers run simultaneously causing continuous, deafening, intolerable, vibrating noise and hot air blasts directed at Frabella I; tenants (especially on floors facing Feliza Building) suffered disturbance, were forced to vacate or avoid occupancy, resulting in vacant units and loss of rental income.
- Repeated complaints and demands by FPC/FCC to ACEI beginning April 11, 1995, with ACEI rejecting initial demand (letter dated May 15, 1995) and subsequent demands (June 6, 1995; August 14, 2000) allegedly ignored by petitioner.
Environmental Tests and Administrative Reports (EMB / DENR)
- EMB tests and reports:
- EMB report received August 11, 1995: concluded noise from Feliza Building blowers beyond allowable level under Section 78(b) of P.D. No. 984 (as amended).
- Subsequent EMB tests dated December 8, 1995 and July 1, 1996 produced similar results.
- Additional EMB reports dated August 29, 2000 and November 4, 2000 likewise showed exceedance.
- EMB panel tests on May 24, 2002 (measurements taken 10:30 a.m. to 12:50 p.m.)—Investigation Report (submitted June 28, 2002) concluded passing vehicles and blowers of nearby buildings contributed to ambient noise; recommended endorsement to City Government of Makati because DENR A.O. No. 30 devolved noise nuisance abatement functions to LGUs.
- EMB SPL measurements conducted February 4, 2003; EMB report (submitted November 24, 2003) noted SPL measurements higher when doors were open compared to when closed, emphasized that Section 78(b) standards for ambient noise could not be applied to inside-building readings, and stated that SPL readings were not the only critical factor because annoyance/nuisance may exist even when noise is not high.
Administrative and Local Government Actions
- Frabella I Condominium Corporation (FCC) filed complaint with Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB): PAB Case No. 01-0009-NCR (filed March 11, 2001) for abatement of noise/air pollution and damages with plea for injunctive relief.
- PAB Resolution (July 29, 2003): dismissed the PAB pollution complaint and endorsed the matter to the Local Government Unit (LGU) in accordance with PAB Resolution 1-C, Series of 1997, Section IV, Rule III; reasoned case was more of a nuisance and LGUs have power to abate nuisances except where case constitutes pollution proven by DENR standards; dismissal was without prejudice to instituting a pollution case upon proof of DENR standard violations.
- Makati City Building Official (Engr. Nelson B. Morales) communication: in letter dated July 19, 2002 advised that excess noise in area did not come from Feliza Building’s airconditioning system alone and recommended referring further matters to the concerned government agency (EMB); copies furnished to City Mayor, City Attorney, and petitioner.
- Respondent sought intervention from Makati City Health Officer and Mayor; City Health Officer indicated a panel must be formed; petitioner was the subject of several LGU referrals and investigations but Engr. Morales did not render a final quasi-judicial resolution.
Procedural Course in Civil Court (RTC) and Reliefs Sought in Complaint
- Respondent filed complaint for the abatement of nuisance with damages and prayer for writ of preliminary and permanent injunction before RTC of Malabon City on July 1, 2003.
- Complaint alleged continuous intolerable noise and hot air from 36 blowers causing loss of tenants, vacancies, deprivation of rental income, and inability of occupants to enjoy peaceful and comfortable use of property.
- Reliefs prayed in RTC complaint:
- Issuance of preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from operating the airconditioning system / turning on blowers while case pending (bond to be fixed by court);
- After trial, order to abate noise and air pollution and/or make preliminary injunction permanent;
- Payment of P1,000,000.00 in temperate/compensatory damages;
- Payment of P1,000,000.00 as exemplary damages;
- Payment of P500,000.00 as attorney’s fees;
- Payment of costs of suit.
- (Earlier administrative/pollution complaint by FCC had sought indemnity of not less than P5,000,000.00 and attorney’s fees P400,000.00 before PAB.)
Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss (Grounds)
- Petitioner moved to dismiss the RTC complaint on grounds:
- Lack of jurisdiction over subject matter—claimed primary jurisdiction vested in Makati City/LGU under R.A. No. 7160 and DENR A.O. No. 30 devolving enforcement and abatement powers;
- Complaint fails to state a cause of action;
- Complaint barred by res judicata, litis pendentia, and forum shopping because of prior administrative proceedings (PAB case and actions before Makati City) and respondent’s alleged failure to disclose pendency of PAB case in certification against forum shopping.
- Petitioner maintained that the July 19, 2002 letter of Engr. Morales constituted a decision precluding relitigation, and emphasized the EMB May 24, 2002 report attributing part of ambient noise to passing vehicles and other buildings.
Respondent’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (Contentions)
- Respondent argued that:
- R.A. No. 7160 provisions cited by petitioner apply to pollution control enforcement not to judicial abatement of private nuisance;
- LGUs possess administrative/executive, not judicial/quasi-judicial, authority to abate nuisances that are not nuisance per se; DENR A.O. No. 30 is administrative and cannot deprive courts of jurisdiction;
- By filing a motion to dismiss petitioner had hypothetically admitted the complaint’s factual averments, leaving only questions of law for adjudication by the court;
- The doctrine of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply where questions are legal or where administrative remedy is futile or inadequate; respondent had already sought administrative relief without success;
- Engr. Morales’ letter was not a final quasi-judicial determination and due process had not been observed thereon;
- The PAB complainant (FCC) is a distinct corporate entity; absence of identity of parties means no litis pendentia or forum shopping.
RTC’s Ruling on Motion to Dismiss (Order dated September 15, 2003)
- RTC denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss and subsequently denied motion for reconsideration.
- RTC reasoning:
- Doctrine of primary jurisdiction addresses administrative questions which are generally questions of fact; denial of dismissal appropriate where urgent injunctive relief for alleged irreparable injury is sought;
- Court