The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that noise from ordinary school operations does not automatically constitute an actionable nuisance, clarifying that noise from lawful activities becomes actionable only when it unreasonably interferes with the health or comfort of persons of ordinary sensibilities.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC granted the petition of Couples for Christ School of the Morning Star and reinstated the dismissal of a damages suit filed by residents against a school in Butuan City.  

“Noise is not a nuisance per se. It may be of such a character as to constitute a nuisance, even though it arises from the operation of a lawful business, only if it affects injuriously the health or comfort of ordinary people in the vicinity to an unreasonable extent,” the Court said.  

FACTS AND ISSUE

The case stemmed from complaints filed by residents of Saint Joseph Subdivision in Barangay Villa Kananga, Butuan City against Couples for Christ School of the Morning Star (CFC-SMS), an educational institution operating within the subdivision.

The residents claimed they were repeatedly disturbed by sounds allegedly coming from the school, including amplified announcements, music, games, and other school-related activities. They alleged that the noise disrupted their sleep and peaceful living.  

The residents later reported the disturbances to authorities and lodged complaints before the city government. In March 2018, the school executed an affidavit undertaking to reduce the noise, but the residents claimed the disturbances continued, prompting them to file a complaint for damages with application for temporary restraining order and injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).  

For its part, CFC-SMS argued that it had been lawfully operating since 2012 with the necessary permits and clearances. It maintained that the sounds complained of were merely incidental to regular school activities and denied renting out its facilities for outside social events. The school also said it introduced structural and operational measures intended to reduce noise and cited a 2020 noise monitoring test showing that the noise levels were within allowable residential limits.  

In June 2021, the RTC dismissed the complaint after finding insufficient proof of bad faith or actionable injury.  

However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the ruling in August 2023, declaring the noise an actionable nuisance and directing the school to abate the sound from its premises. The appellate court also ordered the school to pay P500,000 in nominal damages and P100,000 in attorney’s fees.  

The main issue elevated before the SC was whether the noise produced by the school’s operations constituted an actionable nuisance that would make CFC-SMS liable for damages under the Civil Code.

RULING

The SC granted the school’s petition for review on certiorari and reversed the CA ruling, reinstating the RTC decision dismissing the complaint.  

The Court held that the sounds constituted “academic noise” ordinarily arising from the lawful operation of an educational institution.  

The SC said exceeding allowable decibel levels does not automatically establish nuisance liability. It also noted that a 2020 environmental test found the school’s noise levels within allowable limits.  

The SC also noted that the school undertook measures to mitigate the noise and that there was no proof it acted with malice, bad faith, or intent to injure the complainants.  

The Court also found insufficient proof that the noise unreasonably affected persons of ordinary sensibilities or caused the alleged health effects.  

“Simply put, there can be no actionable nuisance if ordinary persons living in the community would not consider the sound as such, even if the idiosyncrasies of a particular member may make the sound intolerable,” the SC said.  

The Court added that liability under Articles 19, 20, 21, and 26 of the Civil Code requires proof of malice or bad faith, which the residents failed to establish.

Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.