Case Digest: Velasco vs. Manila Electric Co. G.R. No. L-18390 I August 6, 1971

FACTS:

In 1948, appellant Velasco bought from the People's Homesite and Housing Corporation three (3) adjoining lots situated at the corner of South D and South 6 Streets, Diliman, Quezon City. These lots are within an area zoned out as a "first residence" district by the City Council of Quezon City. Subsequently, the appellant sold two (2) lots to the Meralco, but retained the third lot, which was farthest from the street-corner, whereon he built his house.

In September, 1953, the appellee company started the construction of the sub-station in question. The facility reduces high voltage electricity to a current suitable for distribution to the company's consumers, numbering not less than 8,500 residential homes, over 300 commercial establishments and about 30 industries. The substation has a rated capacity of "2 transformers at 5000 Kva each or a total of 10,000 Kva without fan cooling; or 6250 Kva each or a total of 12,500 Kva with fan cooling". It was constructed at a distance of 10 to 20 meters from the appellant's house. The company built a stone and cement wall at the sides along the streets but along the side adjoining the appellant's property it put up a sawale wall but later changed it to an interlink wire fence. It is undisputed that a sound unceasingly emanates from the substation.

Plaintiff-appellant Velasco contends that the sound constitutes an actionable nuisance because subjection to the sound since 1954 had disturbed the concentration and sleep of said appellant, and impaired his health and lowered the value of his property.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the sound emanating from Meralco's substation constitutes an actionable nuisance.

DECISION:

The noise continuously emitted from Meralco’s substation constitutes an actionable nuisance. The Court held that commercial and industrial activities which are lawful in themselves may become nuisances if they are so offensive to the senses that they render the enjoyment of life and property uncomfortable. It is no defense that skill and care have been exercised and the most improved methods and appliances employed to prevent such result. The determining factor when noise alone is the cause of complaint is not its intensity or volume. It is that the noise is of such character as to produce actual physical discomfort and annoyance to a person of ordinary sensibilities, rendering adjacent property less comfortable and valuable. Quantitative measurements obtained through samplings of the sound intensity reveal that indeed the noise continuously emitted, day and night, constitutes an actionable nuisance for which the appellant is entitled to relief, by requiring the appellee company to adopt the necessary measures to deaden or reduce the sound at the plaintiff's house, by replacing the interlink wire fence with a partition made of sound absorbent material, since the relocation of the substation is manifestly impracticable and would be prejudicial to the customers of the Electric Company who are being serviced from the substation.