18/04/2026
ππππππ πππππ πππ π ππππππππ | The Supreme Court, in the case of πΆπΉπΆ ππβπππ ππ π‘βπ πππππππ ππ‘ππ, ππ‘ ππ., π£. πππππππ ππ‘ ππ., ruled that sounds incident to the operation of an educational institution, those arising from a schoolβs regular activities, are not considered a nuisance and cannot make the school liable for damages. The Supreme Court emphasized that there is no nuisance if an ordinary person would not find the sound disturbing, even if someone else is unusually sensitive to it. It explained:
βLiving in a densely populated country such as the Philippines, where houses and businesses are situated in close proximity, amplifies peopleβs sensitivity to noise. However, not all kinds or levels of noise are actionable. Particularly, the Civil Code regards noise as a nuisance only when it reaches an intensity that injures or endangers the health or safety of others, or annoys or offends the senses.β
The Supreme Court added that damages cannot be claimed for alleged abuse of rights under the Civil Code. It found that the school did not intend to harm or annoy the residents and had taken steps to reduce the noise. There was no evidence that the school caused the noise willfully, with malice or bad faith.
ππππ’ππ ππ¨ππππ’π¨π§:
Unit C-02, Valencia Building, Magallanes Residences, Bolton Ext. St. (front of Bolton Elementary School), Davao City
ππ¨π§ππππ ππ§ππ¨π«π¦πππ’π¨π§:
(082) 308-2301
0999-802-0051
