Case Summary (G.R. No. 159813)
Property and Substation Development
– 1948: Velasco acquires three adjoining residential lots at South D and South 6 Streets, Diliman.
– Two lots sold to MERALCO; third retained for his home.
– Sept–Nov 1953: MERALCO constructs an electrical substation without local building permits or Public Service Commission authorization.
– Substation located 10–20 meters from Velasco’s house, equipped with two 5,000 kVA transformers, emitting continuous humming noise.
Procedural History
– Velasco sues for nuisance under Article 694 of the Civil Code (1950) and damages under Article 2202.
– Trial court dismisses complaint, finding noise unavoidable, non-noxious, and insufficient to cause health or business injury.
– Direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
Applicable Law
– 1935 Philippine Constitution (governing period)
– Civil Code of the Philippines (1950):
• Art. 694 (definition of nuisance)
• Art. 2202 (liability for quasi-delicts)
• Art. 2203 (duty to mitigate damages)
• Art. 2208(11) (attorney’s fees)
– Quezon City Zoning Ordinance No. 1530 (first residence district)
– Republic Act No. 150 (MERALCO franchise amendments)
– Republic Act No. 537, Sec. 24(d) (building removal procedure)
Issue
Whether the continuous humming noise from MERALCO’s substation constitutes an actionable private nuisance injurious to Velasco’s health, comfort, business, and property value, warranting abatement and damages.
Noise Measurement and Expert Findings
– Ambient neighborhood noise: 28–32 dB.
– Dr. Jesus Almonte’s readings at the petitioner’s property line and within the house ranged 46–80 dB, often exceeding typical residential (40 dB) and office (55 dB) standards.
– MERALCO’s own measurements confirmed levels up to 76 dB near transformers.
– Medical testimony linked Velasco’s insomnia, anxiety neurosis, and subsequent infections to incessant noise.
Supreme Court Analysis
- Actionable Nuisance:
– Continuous, monotonous noise exceeding reasonable local levels may constitute nuisance.
– Measured intensities, duration, and medical impact satisfy the Article 694 standard. - Duty to Mitigate:
– Velasco’s failure to relocate or otherwise minimize exposure invoked Article 2203 but did not bar relief altogether. - Liability of City Engineer:
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 159813)
Facts of the Case
- In 1948, Pedro J. Velasco purchased three adjoining residential lots in Diliman, Quezon City; he sold two to Meralco and built his house on the remaining lot.
- Without obtaining a building permit or Public Service Commission authority, Meralco constructed a high‐voltage substation in September–November 1953, 10–20 meters from Velasco’s house.
- The substation, housing two 5,000 kVA transformers (10,000 kVA without fan cooling; 12,500 kVA with fan cooling), continuously emitted a humming or droning noise audible at and beyond the property line.
- Meralco erected a stone‐and‐cement wall along the street sides and initially a sawali wall (later an interlink wire fence) along Velasco’s boundary.
Procedural History
- Civil Case No. 1355 filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, sought abatement of the nuisance and P 487,600.00 in damages under Articles 694 and 2202 of the Civil Code.
- The trial court dismissed Velasco’s complaint, holding the noise unavoidable, not a nuisance, non‐causative of his ailments, and his damage claims unproven.
- Velasco appealed directly to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-18390) prior to RA 5440.
Issue
- Does the continuous humming sound from Meralco’s substation constitute an actionable nuisance under Article 694 of the Civil Code?
- Is Velasco entitled to a decree for abatement and to recover compensatory, moral, and other damages under Article 2202 of the Civil Code?
- Can Anastacio A. Agan, City Engineer of Quezon City, be held solidarily liable for failing to require permits or enforce removal of the illegal structure?
Applicable Legal Principles
- Article 694, Civil Code: A nuisance is any act or condition that endangers health or offends the senses.
- Article 2202, Civil Code: Liability for all damages that are the natural and probable consequences of an act or omission.
- American nuisance jurisprudence (e.g., Tortorella v. Traiser; Kentucky & West