Couples for Christ School of the Morning Star v. Malonda
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondents Wideline I. Malonda, Edward William Inchoco, Lilia I. Inchoco, and others (collectively, Inchoco et al.) are long-time residents of Saint Joseph Subdivision in Butuan City. Petitioners Couples for Christ (CFC) School of the Morning Star (CFC-SMS), Junee Lee Mars H. Nebrada, Psyche A. Nebrada, and Rosario H. Salazar operate an educational institution within the same subdivision. Inchoco et al. claimed frequent bombardment by loud noises from CFC-SMS, including drums, bugles, loud instructions via microphones/megaphones, sounds of bouncing balls, running, clapping, cheering, and shouting during games, which allegedly disturbed their sleep and tranquil living. On December 5, 2015, Wideline observed loud sounds and multi-colored lights from CFC-SMS, reporting it to the Philippine National Police (PNP). Subsequently, Atty. William Inchoco, Jr. wrote to the Mayor of Butuan City, and 24 families/individuals sent a letter voicing complaints. On March 12, 2018, CFC-SMS executed an Affidavit of Undertaking to reduce noise, but Inchoco et al. claimed the noise persisted. 2. Procedural History: On March 27, 2018, Inchoco et al. filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City for Damages with Application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Preliminary Injunction. CFC-SMS, in its Answer, averred it had necessary permits, other residents supported its activities, sounds were associated with regular classes, no night classes, and it undertook measures like higher fences, tree planting, small speakers, and strict activity hours (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays). It also cited a City Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) test on February 5, 2020, confirming noise within permissible limits. On May 16, 2018, the RTC denied the TRO/injunction. On June 25, 2021, the RTC dismissed Inchoco et al.'s complaint, finding no proof of prejudice, bad faith, or causation for Lilia's ailments, and rejected damages for lack of evidence. The RTC also denied CFC-SMS's plea for attorney's fees. Inchoco et al.'s motion for reconsideration was denied on November 8, 2021. Aggrieved, Inchoco et al. appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On August 24, 2023, the CA reversed the RTC, labeling the noise an actionable nuisance, noting noise from social functions, and citing Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) tests from December 7 and 16, 2017, showing noise exceeding 55 decibels. The CA awarded Inchoco et al. PHP 500,000.00 in nominal damages and PHP 100,000.00 in attorney's fees, and directed CFC-SMS to abate the noise. CFC-SMS's motion for reconsideration was denied on February 22, 2024. 3. The Petition: Unfazed, CFC-SMS filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. CFC-SMS maintains that the noise from its school activities, or "academic noise," does not constitute an actionable nuisance warranting liability for damages under the Civil Code. It asserts it never willfully or negligently caused noise, nor acted in bad faith, and denies renting out its function hall. It contends it cooperated and undertook measures to abate the noise. CFC-SMS questions whether Inchoco et al. are deemed to have ordinary sensibilities, noting that only five out of 23 plaintiffs testified, with three from the same household, rendering testimonies self-serving. It argues Lilia failed to prove her health worsened due to school noise and challenges the CA's abatement directive, citing the latest CENRO Certification showing normalized noise levels. Finally, CFC-SMS bewails the award of damages and attorney's fees. Inchoco et al. counter that the petition raises questions of fact, that the noise was not solely academic, and that CFC-SMS transgressed Articles 19, 20, 21, 26, and 2219 of the Civil Code, citing testimonies of residents complaining of incessant noise and discomfort.
Issue(s)
Whether CFC-SMS is liable for damages.
Ruling
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The August 24, 2023 Decision and the February 22, 2024 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 06352-MIN are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The June 25, 2021 Decision and the November 8, 2021 Resolution of Branch 3, Regional Trial Court of Butuan City in Civil Case No. 7890, are hereby REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court found that CFC-SMS is not liable for damages, reversing the Court of Appeals (CA) and reinstating the Regional Trial Court (RTC) decision. The Court reiterated that noise is not a nuisance per se and becomes actionable only if it unreasonably interferes with the health or comfort of ordinary individuals, passing the limits of reasonable adjustment to the conditions of the locality. The Court adopted a comprehensive framework from Frabelle Properties Corp. v. AC Enterprises, Inc., considering factors beyond mere decibel levels, such as the reliability of noise tests, mitigation measures, allowable noise levels, the defendant's intent, the number of complaining witnesses, the representativeness of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's actions to alleviate their plight. Applying this framework, the Court found that the sounds emanating from CFC-SMS arose from its ordinary operations as an educational institution, which is an expected part of local business conditions. The Court rejected the CA's finding that CFC-SMS rented out its multipurpose hall for a fee, noting the lack of categorical confirmation or substantiating evidence. Furthermore, while earlier Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) tests showed noise exceeding limits, the most recent City Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) test on February 5, 2020, confirmed noise within allowable levels, a fact even admitted by Inchoco et al.'s witnesses. The Court also highlighted CFC-SMS's immediate implementation of mitigating measures, such as renovating its chapel, holding major events outside, enhancing information campaigns, increasing fence height, and planting trees. The Court concluded that the sounds did not exceed what might be reasonably expected from school operations, and CFC-SMS did not intentionally or unnecessarily cause harm. The Court also found that Inchoco et al. were hardly representative of persons of ordinary sensibilities, noting Lilia's age and lack of definitive proof linking her medical condition to the noise, and the heightened sensitivity of Wideline and Edward due to studying. The Court emphasized that an actionable nuisance requires interference with the physical comfort of existence for ordinary and reasonable individuals, not those with peculiar temperaments or unusual sensitivities. Finally, the Court ruled that Inchoco et al. could not claim damages under Articles 19, 20, 21, and 26 of the Civil Code, as establishing liability under these human relations provisions hinges on proof of malice or bad faith, which was absent. CFC-SMS lawfully conducted its business without any more noise than reasonably necessary and with no intention to injure or vex Inchoco et al., having even undertaken various measures to abate the noise.
Main Doctrine
The main doctrine reiterated and applied in this case is that noise is not a nuisance per se and becomes actionable only upon clear proof that it unreasonably interferes with the health or comfort of ordinary individuals, passing the limits of reasonable adjustment to the conditions of the locality. The determination of whether noise constitutes an actionable nuisance requires a comprehensive assessment of various factors beyond mere decibel levels, including the nature of the source, the defendant's efforts to mitigate, the intent to cause harm, the representativeness of the complainants, and whether the noise causes actual physical discomfort and annoyance to a person of ordinary sensibilities. Furthermore, liability under the human relations provisions of the Civil Code (Articles 19, 20, 21, 26) hinges on proof of malice or bad faith on the part of the defendant.