Case Summary (G.R. No. 109941)
Petitioner
Smart Communications, Inc., through its contractor, Allarilla Construction, constructed and operates a 150-foot cellular base station with antennas, transmitters, and a 25KVA diesel generator.
Respondents
Nearby homeowners and occupants who allege that the tower’s structural design, radiofrequency emissions, generator noise and fumes, and lack of proper permits pose dangers to health, safety, and property.
Key Dates
• March 9, 2000 – Lease executed for lot in Barangay Vira.
• May 23, 2000 – Respondents filed Complaint for abatement of nuisance and injunction in the RTC.
• January 16, 2001 – RTC grants SCI’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Complaint.
• July 16, 2004 – Court of Appeals reverses and declares the base station a nuisance, ordering cessation of operations.
• December 9, 2004 – CA denies SCI’s motion for reconsideration.
• September 11, 2013 – Supreme Court decision on Rule 45 petition.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (site decision post-1990).
• Republic Act No. 7925 (Telecommunications Act of 1995), promoting expansion of service.
• HLURB Resolution No. R-626, series of 1998 (locational guidelines for base stations).
• 1996 HLURB Rules of Procedure, as amended by R-655 (administrative opposition, primary jurisdiction, exhaustion of remedies).
• Civil Code, Article 694 (definition of nuisance).
• Rules of Court, Rule 35 (summary judgment).
Factual Background
SCI secured a building permit from the municipal engineer and applied (pending) for an Environmental Compliance Certificate from DENR-EMB. Respondents allege lack of barangay and municipal permits, absence of public hearing, forgery of barangay certifications, structural instability (citing a prior tower collapse), hazardous radiofrequency emission, noxious generator fumes and noise, and violation of NTC requirements. SCI counters with engineering and health-physics certifications, a list of consenting residents (including the barangay captain), and reliance on RA 7925’s mandate.
Trial Court Proceedings
• Respondents sought temporary restraining order and preliminary mandatory injunction, injunctive relief, abatement of nuisance, demolition of the tower, and damages.
• SCI filed an answer with special and affirmative defenses and a compulsory counterclaim for damages.
• Pretrial and summary-judgment proceedings were held; key disputed facts included structural integrity, radiation levels, generator noise test results, and validity of local approvals.
Summary Judgment and RTC Decision
On January 16, 2001, the RTC granted summary judgment for SCI, dismissing the Complaint as “highly speculative.” The court held that:
- DOH findings showed radiation levels lower than broadcast standards.
- Alleged hazards were unsupported by facts.
- Other urban base stations operate without challenge.
- No DENR action had been taken to halt operations.
Reconsideration was denied on February 27, 2001.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals reversed on two main grounds:
- SCI’s locational clearance was void for lack of majority-resident consent and no barangay council resolution.
- The generator’s noise emissions exceeded DENR standards.
It declared the entire base station a nuisance and ordered SCI to cease operations. A motion for reconsideration was denied.
Issues on Review
- Whether the CA improperly adjudicated the validity of SCI’s HLURB locational clearance.
- Whether the CA correctly declared the whole base station a nuisance when only the generator produced objectionable noise.
- Whether the complaint became moot after the generator’s removal.
Supreme Court Analysis
Validity of Locational Clearance
• By the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies and primary jurisdiction, HLURB has the exclusive authority to issue, review, or revoke locational clearances for base stations.
• Respondents made no prior HLURB opposition or petition for review. It was premature for courts to rule on the clearance’s validity.
Nuisance Determination
• Article 694, Civil Code, defines nuisance broadly as acts or conditions injurious to hea
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 109941)
Facts
- Smart Communications, Inc. (petitioner) is a domestic telecommunications corporation.
- March 9, 2000: Petitioner leased a 300 m² vacant lot in Barangay Vira, Roxas, Isabela from Florentino Sebastian.
- Petitioner installed a cellular base station with a 150-ft communications tower (tripod steel sections without guywires), antennas, transmitters, and a 25 KVA diesel generator housed in a power house.
- Nearby are private residences, hospitals, clinics, and establishments belonging to respondents and other residents.
Complaint and Allegations
- May 23, 2000: Respondents filed Civil Case No. Br. 23-632-2000 for abatement of nuisance and mandatory injunction, seeking TRO and preliminary injunction.
- Tower structural defects alleged—weak, unstable, prone to collapse (citing a prior Mobiline tower collapse during Typhoon in 1998).
- Health and safety hazards: noxious generator fumes, constant noise, ultra high frequency (UHF) radiation thousands of times stronger than cellphones.
- Illegal construction: no barangay or municipal permits, no public hearing, no DENR ECC, no NTC clearance; alleged forgery of barangay certifications.
- Prayers: permanent injunction, demolition of tower, declaration of nuisance per se or per accidens, moral/exemplary damages (₱150,000/₱30,000), attorney’s fees, litigation expenses.
Petitioner’s Defenses & Counterclaims
- Secured building permit April 17, 2000; ECC application pending with DENR-EMB.
- Obtained written consent of majority of nearby residents (including respondent Torre) and a barangay certification (denied as forged by respondents).
- Submitted Department of Health Radio Frequency Evaluation Report (May 9, 2000) showing safe emission levels.
- Presented Stress Analysis Report certifying tower’s structural stability.
- Cited Republic Act No. 7925 (Telecommunications Act of 1995) mandating network expansion to unserved areas.
- Counterclaimed for moral/exemplary damages, attorney’s fees (₱500,000), and litigation expenses.
Respondents’ Opposition
- Alleged the DOH evaluation was misled by petitioner-supplied low power figures; actual transmitted power much higher.
- Pointed out lack of ECC and NTC clearance; building permit application did not cover a telecommunications tower.
- Challenged Stress Analysis Report as self-serving and structurally flawed.
- Denied genuinene