PAB Law and Associates

17/04/2026

Nagpasya ang na hindi maituturing na nuisance o isang istorbo ang mga tunog o ingay na nagmumula sa mga regular na aktibidad ng isang eskwelahan. Hindi rin ito maaaring maging batayan para managot ang paaralan sa pagbabayad ng danyos.

Sa Desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, pinagbigyan ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang petisyon ng Couples for Christ School of the Morning Star (eskwelahan) at binaliktad ang pasya ng Court of Appeals (CA) na naggawad ng danyos sa mga residente ng Saint Joseph Subdivision sa Barangay Villa Kananga, Lungsod ng Butuan kung saan matatagpuan ang eskwelahan.

Sinampahan ng kaso ng mga residente ng subdivision ang eskwelahan dahil sa naririnig nilang malakas na ingay mula sa eskwelahan tulad ng tunog ng tambol at bugle, mga gurong gumagamit ng mikropono at megaphone, at mga estudyanteng tumatakbo, sumisigaw, at naghihiyawan habang naglalaro sa multipurpose center. Ayon sa kanila, nakagagambala sa kanilang pagtulog at katahimikan sa kanilang tahanan ang mga ingay na ito na naririnig umano araw at gabi.

Depensa ng eskwelahan, nagmumula lang sa regular na klase ang anumang ingay at may kaukulang mga permit at clearance sila magmula nang magsimula ang kanilang operasyon noong 2012. Idagdag pa ng eskwelahan, nasa loob ng pinahihintulutang limitasyon para sa mga residential area ang antas ng ingay, base sa pagsusuri ng City Environment and Natural Resources Office. Nagsagawa na rin umano ito ng mga hakbang para mabawasan ang ingay gaya ng pagtatayo ng mas matataas na bakod, pagtatanim ng mga puno, paggamit ng mas maliliit na speaker, at paglilimita ng mga aktibidad mula 7:00 ng umaga hanggang 7:00 ng gabi kapag may klase.

Isinantabi ng Regional Trial Court (RTC) ang reklamo ng mga residente, pero nagpasya pabor sa mga residente ang Court of Appeals (CA).

Binaliktad ng Korte Suprema ang desisyon ng CA. Iginiit nito na hindi isang istorbo ang akademikong ingay o mga tunog mula sa mga lehitimong aktibidad sa eskwelahan.

Kasama sa maituturing na nuisance o istorbo ang anumang kaguluhan na nakasasagabal sa kaginhawahan, ari-arian, o kasiyahan ng isang tao. Para may mananagot para sa mga pinsala, ang ingay ay dapat sapat na malakas para makapinsala o magbanta sa kalusugan o kaligtasan, o para inisin o saktan ang isang ordinaryo at makatwirang tao.

Para maituring na isang istorbo ang ingay, isinasaalang-alang ng Korte Suprema, sa kasong Frabelle Properties Corp. v. AC Enterprises Inc., ang mga sumusunod:
• ang pagiging maaasahan ng mga isinagawang pagsusuri sa polusyon ng ingay,
• ang mga hakbang na ginawa para mabawasan ang ingay,
• ang pinahihintulutang antas ng ingay,
• ang layunin ng defendant na magdulot ng pinsala sa nagrereklamo,
• ang bilang ng mga nagrereklamo,
• ang pagiging kinatawan ng nagrereklamo komunidad, at
• ang mga hakbang na ginawa ng nagrereklamo para maibsan ang kanyang kalagayan.

Nagpasya ang Korte Suprema na nabigo ang mga residente na patunayan na labis at hindi makatwirang nakagagambala ang ingay mula sa eskwelahan, at nagpalala sa kanilang kalagayang pangkalusugan. Hindi rin ito lumampas sa maaaring asahan mula sa isang eskwelahan. Binigyang-diin ng Korte Suprema na walang nuisance kung hindi naman maaabala sa tunog ang isang karaniwang tao kahit pa may isang taong labis na sensitibo rito.

Hindi rin naipakita ng mga residenteng nagsampa ng kaso na kumakatawan siła są buong komunidad.

Dagdag pa ng Korte Suprema, hindi maaaring maghabol ng danyos batay sa sinasabing abuse of rights sa ilalim ng Civil Code kung walang sapat na batayan. Nagpasya ang Korte na walang layunin ang eskwelahan na manakit o mang-abala sa mga residente at nagsagawa pa ito ng mga hakbang para mabawasan ang ingay. Wala ring ebidensiya na sinadya ng eskwelahan ang paglikha ng ingay nang may masamang hangarin o masamang loob.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163502.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163486.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

17/04/2026

The (SC) has ruled that sounds incident to the operation of an educational institution, those arising from a school’s regular activities, are not considered a nuisance and cannot make the school liable for damages.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division granted the petition of Couples for Christ School of the Morning Star (School) and reversed the Court of Appeals’ (CA) ruling that awarded damages to residents of Saint Joseph Subdivision in Barangay Villa Kananga, Butuan City, where the school is located.

Wideline I. Malonda and others, who are residents of the Subdivision, claimed they were often exposed to loud noises from the School, such as drums and bugles being played, teachers speaking through microphones and megaphones, and students running, cheering and shouting during games played at the multipurpose center.

The residents claimed that these sounds, heard day and night, disturbed their sleep and peace at home.

In its defense, the School said it has been operating since 2012 with the necessary permits and clearances and that any noise comes only from regular classes. It added that the City Environment and Natural Resources Office conducted a test and found the noise to be within the allowed limits for residential areas. The School also claimed it took steps to reduce noise, such as building higher fences, planting trees, using small speakers, and limiting activities to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the residents’ complaint, ruling that they failed to prove they were harmed by the noise. The RTC also found that the School did not intend to harm the residents and acted in good faith by taking steps to reduce the noise.

On appeal, the CA ruled in the residents’ favor, holding that the School’s noise, which came not only from classes but also from other social functions in the multi-purpose hall, was a nuisance that caused discomfort and annoyance to the residents.

The SC overturned the CA’s ruling. It held that academic noise, or sounds from legitimate school activities, is not a nuisance.

Nuisance includes any disturbance that interferes with a person, property or comfort and enjoyment of all citizens. The SC ruled that the determination of whether a noise is a nuisance requires more than just considering the location, environment, and its effect on residents.

Thus, for noise to be considered nuisance, the SC considered in the 𝘍𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘱. 𝘷. 𝘈𝘊 𝘌𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘐𝘯𝘤. the:

1. reliability of the noise pollution tests conducted,
2. introduction by the defendant of measures or improvements to mitigate the noise,
3. allowable noise levels,
4. defendant’s intention (or lack thereof) to cause harm to the plaintiff,
5. number of complaining witnesses,
6. representativeness of the plaintiff, and
7. actions of the plaintiff to alleviate his or her plight.

Adopting the framework, the SC finds that the sounds emanating from the School arose from its ordinary operations as an educational institution, and that the respondents are hardly representative of the community.

The SC also ruled that the residents failed to prove that the noise was unreasonably disturbing and that it worsened their health conditions. The residents’ statements showed only minor discomforts, not serious harm.

The SC added that while location and environment are important in determining a nuisance, they must be weighed against whether the noise is normally expected from the activity involved. Here, the sounds complained of did not go beyond what could be reasonably expected from a school.

The SC 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.

The SC explained:

“𝘓𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦’𝘴 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.”

The SC also denied the claim for damages since 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.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163502

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163486

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/278875-formerly-udk-no-18061-concurring-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution

13/04/2026

16/01/2026

The FAQs have been updated to address the most pressing inquiries about the Examinations application process, including profile updates, review course completions, and payment issues.

Stay informed, stay on track. See the latest by scanning the QR code or clicking the link: https://tinyurl.com/2026-BAR-FAQs-as-of-01-16-2026.

07/01/2026

29/12/2025

The invites all photographers to be part of its 125th Anniversary Photo Contest with the theme “Accessible and Inclusive Justice.”

Capture stories of hope, struggle, and resilience: moments that show what justice looks like in everyday Filipino life.

Photos must be taken from January 1, 2026 onward and the deadline for submission is March 31, 2026, with the full contest mechanics to be announced soon.

Read more at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158424