VELASCO V.

MERALCO
G.R. NO. 18390
AUGUST 6, 1971

FACTS: Velasco bought three (3) adjoining lots. He sold two (2) of these to Meralco and maintained the
last one as his residence. Meralco constructed on their lots a sub-station at a distance of 10-20 meters
away from appellant’s house. The company also built a concrete wall at the sides along the streets but
put up only an interlink wire fence (previously a sawali wall) on the boundary with appellant. An
unceasing sound emanates from the substation caused by transformers. Appellant contends that it
constitutes a nuisance which has worsened his health condition and has lowered the value of his
property. Several witnesses came forth but their testimonies were vague and imprecise. They sorted the
matter through the use of a sound level meter. The audible sound from different areas in Velaso’s
property was measured in terms of decibels. It was found that the sound exceeded the average intensity
levels of residences.

Plaintiff-appellant Velasco contends that the sound constitutes an actionable nuisance under Article 694
of the Civil Code of the Philippines, reading as follows:

A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business condition of property or anything else which:
(1) Injuries or endangers the health or safety of others; or
(2) Annoys or offends the senses;

The court dismissed the claim of the plaintiff, finding that the sound of substation was unavoidable and
did not constitute nuisance; that it could not have caused the diseases of anxiety neurosis,
pyelonephritis, ureteritis, lumbago and anemia; and that the items of damage claimed by plaintiff were
not adequately proved.

ISSUE: Whether this sound constitutes an actionable nuisance or not.

HELD: Yes, it constitutes an actionable nuisance. No previous adjudications on the specific issue have
been made in the Philippines, our law of nuisances is of American origin, and a review of authorities
clearly indicates the rule to be that the causing or maintenance of disturbing noise or sound may
constitute an actionable nuisance Several American decisions are cited showing that noise is an
actionable nuisance. In fact, Kentucky v. Anderson dealt with noise emanating from electrical machinery
and appliances. The determining factor, however, is not just intensity or volume. It must be of such
character as to produce actual physical discomfort and annoyance to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
However, appellant’s testimony is too plainly biased. Nor are the witnesses’ testimonies revealing on
account of different perceptions. Consequently, sound level meters were used. As stated above, the
sound exceeds average residential decibels. Also, the testimonies of appellant’s physicians (which were
more reliable since they actually treated him) point to the noise as having caused appellant loss of sleep,
irritation and tension weakening his constitution. Notable lastly is the fact that in the Kentucky case,
where the nuisance was ordered abated, the average reading was 44 decibels while in the instant, the
readings include 52, 54, and 55. The decision goes on to discuss the proper award of damages and
decided that Velasco was awarded with damages for the annoyance and adverse effects suffered by him
since the substation started functioning in January, 1954. Considering all the circumstances disclosed by
the record, as well as appellant's failure to minimize the deleterious influences from the substation, the
Court is of the opinion that an award in the amount of P20,000.00, by way of moderate and moral
damages. Meralco was ordered either to transfer the facilities or take appropriate measures to reduce
its noise at the property line between the defendant company's compound and that of the plaintiff-
appellant to an average of forty (40) to fifty (50) decibels.