Case Summary (G.R. No. 171303)
Key Dates
• April 11, 1995 – FPC’s first demand to ACEI to abate noise and hot-air nuisance.
• August 1995–July 1996 – DENR Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) tests confirm blower noise exceeds P.D. 984 standards.
• March 11, 2001 – FCC (managing Frabella I) files Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) complaint.
• May 24, 2002 & February 4, 2003 – EMB SPL measurements and reports.
• July 1, 2003 – FPC files civil complaint for nuisance abatement and damages in RTC Malabon.
• September 15, 2003 – RTC denies ACEI’s motion to dismiss.
• November 2, 2006 – Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date post-1990)
• Local Government Code (R.A. 7160), in particular Sections 17, 447, 458
• Presidential Decree 984 (P.D. 984), particularly Section 78(b) and implementing rules on noise quality standards
• DENR Administrative Order No. 30 (1992) on devolved LGU functions
• New Civil Code: Articles 694–706 (nuisance), 697 (damages), 705–706 (abatement)
• B.P. Blg. 129, as amended (RTC jurisdictional limits)
• 1987 Administrative Code, Title XIV, Section 13 (PAB jurisdiction)
Factual Background
ACEI’s Feliza Building houses 36 blowers (four per floor, 2nd–10th floors) discharging toward Frabella I across a 12-meter public road. Since 1995, FPC complained of intense noise, vibration, and hot-air blasts impairing Frabella’s occupants, prompting tenant vacancies and rental losses.
Administrative Proceedings
FPC repeatedly sought intervention from DENR, MMDA, MACEA, Makati City Health Office, and Makati City Mayor’s Office. EMB tests (1995–2000) consistently registered noise levels above P.D. 984’s allowable decibels. A May 24, 2002 EMB panel acknowledged multiple ambient noise sources and recommended referral to LGU. The Makati City Building Official (July 19, 2002) declined exclusive attribution to Feliza Building and directed further inquiries to the EMB. EMB’s November 24, 2003 report opined that nuisance depends on receptor disturbance, not just measured SPL. A PAB proceeding (PAB Case No. 01-0009-NCR) filed by FCC was dismissed for lack of pollution jurisdiction and endorsed nuisance abatement to the LGU.
Trial Court Proceedings
FPC filed in RTC Malabon (Civil Case No. 03-3745-MH) for nuisance abatement, injunctive relief, damages (temperate, exemplary), attorney’s fees, and costs. ACEI moved to dismiss on grounds of (1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (LGU primary); (2) failure to state a cause of action; (3) res judicata, litis pendentia, forum-shopping. RTC denied the motion, holding:
• Nuisance abatement suits fall exclusively under RTC jurisdiction (B.P. 129).
• Motion to dismiss admits factual averments, leaving only legal questions.
• Administrative findings (City Engineer, PAB) are non-adjudicative and non-preclusive.
• All elements of a private nuisance cause of action were alleged.
Court of Appeals Proceedings
On ACEI’s petition for certiorari, CA affirmed:
• RTC has exclusive jurisdiction over private nuisance actions incapable of pecuniary estimation.
• LGU devolution under R.A. 7160 and DENR A.O. 30 does not oust RTC’s judicial power to resolve private nuisance disputes.
• Doctrine of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies unnecessary when only legal issues remain after admission of facts.
• No res judicata or litis pendentia, as the City-engineer communications and PAB dismissal were administrative, non-quasi-judicial, and without finality.
• FPC stated a valid cause of action: rights of unit owners impaired by intolerable noise and heat, leading to tenant loss and damages.
Issues on Appeal
- Whether LGUs have exclusive jurisdiction over noise nuisance abatement, ousting RTC.
- Whether respondent’s suit was premature (failure to exhaust LGU remedies, primary jurisdiction).
- Whether res judicata, litis pendentia, or forum-shopping barred the RTC action.
- Whether FPC stated a cause of action for private nuisance and damages.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
- RTC Jurisdiction — Under Article 694–695, New Civil Code, a private nuisance suit is a civil action for injunctive relief and damages. B.P. 129 grants RTC exclusive jurisdiction over actions not purely for sum recovery.
- LGU and PAB Devolution — DENR A.O. 30 and R.A. 7160 devolved administrative/regulatory functions to LGUs (noise standards enforcement) but did not strip courts of judicial power to resolve private nuisance claims. PAB’s statutory mandate (P.D. 984, Administrative Code) cove
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 171303)
Facts
- Petitioner AC Enterprises, Inc. (ACEI) owns the 10-storey Feliza Building in Makati City, subdivided into commercial/office units.
- The building’s air-conditioning system comprises 18 air-cooled units with 36 blowers (four per floor from 2nd to 10th), discharging toward the rear of Frabella I Condominium.
- Respondent Frabelle Properties Corporation (FPC) developed and manages Frabella I, a 29-storey commercial/residential condominium across a 12-m wide street (Rodriguez Street) from the Feliza Building.
- Since April 1995, FPC has repeatedly demanded that ACEI abate “unbearable” noise, vibration, and hot-air blasts from the blowers. ACEI refused.
- FPC commissioned multiple tests by the DENR Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) between 1995 and 2003, consistently finding noise levels exceeding legal limits under Section 78(b) of P.D. No. 984, as amended.
- Tenants of Frabella I complained, vacated units, and FPC suffered rental losses. FPC solicited intervention from MACEA, MMDA, Makati City Health Officer, City Building Official, and Pollution Adjudication Board, to no avail.
Procedural History
- March 11, 2001: Frabella I Condominium Corporation (FCC) filed a PAB complaint for abatement of noise/air pollution; PAB later dismissed for lack of pollution jurisdiction and endorsed abatement to Makati LGU.
- July 1, 2003: FPC filed in RTC Malabon City Civil Case No. 3742-MH for private nuisance abatement, injunctive relief, and damages.
- ACEI moved to dismiss for: lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (claimed vested in Makati LGU under R.A. No. 7160 and DENR A.O. No. 30), no cause of action, res judicata, litis pendentia, and forum shopping.
- RTC denied motion (Sept. 15, 2003), ruling that nuisance abatement is within RTC’s exclusive jurisdiction, that exhaustion of administrative remedies was unnecessary, and that defenses of res judicata and forum shopping failed.
- Court of Appeals affirmed (Sept. 21, 2004; denied reconsideration Jan. 18, 2005), holding RTC had jurisdiction, the case raised pure questions of law on nuisance, and administrative findings did not bar judicial relief.
- ACEI filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court challenging jurisdiction, application of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion doctrines, and sufficiency of cause of action.
Issues
- Whether the Makati City Government, under R.A. No