Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
_______________
*FIRSTDIVISION.
393
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 393
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
394
394 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
395
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 395
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
The Court does not lose sight of the fact that respondents Complaint in
CivilCaseNo.Br.236322000isprimarilyforabatementofnuisanceand
respondents alleged the lack of HLURB requirements for the cellular base
station, not to seek nullification of petitioners locational clearance, but to
support their chief argument that said cellular base station is a nuisance
which needs to be abated. The issue of whether or not the locational
clearance for said cellular base station is valid is actually separate and
distinct from the issue of whether or not the cellular base station is a
nuisanceoneisnotnecessarilydeterminativeoftheother.Whilethefirstis
withintheprimaryjurisdictionoftheHLURBand,therefore,prematurefor
thecourtstoruleuponinthepresentcase,thelatteriswithinthejurisdiction
ofthecourtstodeterminebutonlyaftertrialproper.
SameSameCourtsRegionalTrialCourtsJurisdictionNuisanceA
simple suit for abatement of nuisance, being incapable of pecuniary
estimation, is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Court.The Court, in AC Enterprises, Inc. v. Frabelle Properties
Corporation,506SCRA625(2006),settledthatasimplesuitforabatement
ofnuisance,beingincapableofpecuniaryestimation,iswithintheexclusive
jurisdictionoftheRTC.Althoughrespondentsalsoprayedforjudgmentfor
moralandexemplarydamages,attorneysfees,andlitigationexpenses,such
claimsaremerelyincidentaltoorasaconsequenceof,theirprincipalrelief.
Same Same Judgments Summary Judgments For a summary
judgment to be proper, the movant must establish two requisites: (a) there
must be no genuine issue as to any material fact, except for the amount of
damages and (b) the party presenting the motion for summary judgment
must be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.In Rivera v. Solidbank
Corporation,487SCRA512(2006),theCourtdiscussedextensivelywhena
summary judgment is proper: For a summary judgment to be proper, the
movantmustestablishtworequisites:(a)theremustbenogenuineissueas
to any material fact, except for the amount of damages and (b) the party
presentingthemotionforsummaryjudgmentmustbeentitledtoajudgment
asamatteroflaw.Where,onthebasisofthepleadingsofamovingparty,
includingdocumentsappendedthereto,nogenuineissueastoamaterialfact
exists,theburdentoproduceagenuineissueshiftstotheopposingparty.If
the opposing party fails, the moving party is entitled to a summary
judgment.Agenuineissueisanissueof
396
396 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolutionof
theCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Picazo,Buyco,Tan,Fider&Santosforpetitioner.
AdelineCambriCortezforrespondents.
LEONARDODECASTRO,J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Smart
Communications, Inc., seeking the reversal of the Decision1 dated
July16,2004andResolution2datedDecember9,2004oftheCourt
of Appeals in CAG.R. CV No. 71337. The appellate court (1)
reversed and set aside the Order3 dated January 16, 2001 of the
reversed and set aside the Order3 dated January 16, 2001 of the
RegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch23,of
_______________
1Rollo,pp. 4457 penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes with Associate
JusticesPerlitaJ.TriaTironaandJoseC.Reyes,Jr.,concurring.
2Id.,atpp.5859.
3Id.,atpp.126128pennedbyJudgeTeoduloE.Mirasol.
397
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 397
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
_______________
4Records,pp.127128.
398
398 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
399
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 399
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
RespondentsthusprayedfortheRTCto:
1.Issueatemporaryrestrainingorderandafterduehearingtoissuea
writofpreliminarymandatoryinjunction
2.Renderjudgment:
Making the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction
permanent
Declaring the construction of the SMART tower as a
nuisanceperseorperaccidens
Ordering the abatement of this nuisance by ordering the
removaland/ordemolitionof[petitioners]communication
tower
Condemning [petitioner] to pay [respondents] moral
damages in the sum of P150,000.00 and exemplary
damagesinthesumofP30,000.00
Ordering[petitioner]topayattorneysfeesintheamountof
P20,000.00 plus trial honoraria of P1,000.00 for every
appearanceinCourt
_______________
5Id.,atpp.89.
400
400 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
_______________
6Id.,atp.10.
401
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 401
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
_______________
7Id.,atpp.2021.
402
402 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
[Petitioners]cellsiterelayantennaoperatesontheultrahighfrequency(UHF)
band, or gigabyte band, that is much higher than that of TV and radio
broadcasts which operates only on the Very High Frequency (VHF) band,
hence, [petitioners] equipment generates dangerously high radiation and
emissionthatishazardoustothepeopleexposedtoitlike[respondents],whose
houses are clustered around [petitioners] cell site antenna/communications
tower
Asadmitted,[petitioner]hasnotsecuredtherequiredEnvironmentalCompliance
Certificate (ECC). It has not even obtained the initial compliance certificate
(ICC). In short, [petitioner] should have waited for these documents before
constructingitstower,hence,itviolatedthelawandsuchconstructionisillegal
andallthemoresustainstheassertionsof[respondents]
Theallegedbuildingpermitissuedto[petitioner]isillegalbecauseofthelackof
anECCandthat[petitioners]applicationforabuildingpermitcoveredonlya
building and not a cell site antenna tower. Moreover, the [petitioner] failed to
obtain a National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) Clearance to
construct the communications tower. As will be seen in the application and
permit, the documents are dated April, 2000 while the construction begun in
March,2000
The technical data that served as the basis of the Radio Frequency Radiation
Evaluation of [petitioners] mobile telephone base station was provided solely
by the [petitioner] and in fact misled the DOH Radiation Health Service. It
statesanabsurdlylowtransmittedpoweroftwenty(20)wattsforadualband
mobile phone service such as [petitioner] Smarts GSM 900/1800 Dual Band
whichisthestandardserviceitofferstothepublic
TheStressAnalysisReportisselfservingandtestedagainstthecommunications
tower,thestructuralintegrityisflawed
403
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 403
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
While [respondents] may yield to the mandate of Republic Act No. 7925,
otherwise known as the Telecommunications Act of 1995, extending and
improvingorupgradingofbasicservicestoareasnotyetserved,thisshouldnot
betakenasalicensetogambleand/ordestroythehealthandwellbeingofthe
people
[Petitioners]allegedcertification(AnnexD,shouldbeAnnex4)isthevery
same certification appended to [respondents] complaint which they have
assailedasaforgeryandwhich[respondent]JoseTorre,theBarangayCaptain
of Vira, Roxas, Isabela, emphatically denies having signed and/or issued the
same.Moreover,thecertificationgives[petitioner]awaybecause[respondent]
Jose Torre has no technical education using the telecommunications term
SMARTGSM&ETACSproject,insaidfalsifiedcertification
[Petitioners]claimthatitisnotliableforfraudorbadfaith,proudlystatingthatit
has painstakingly secured the consent of the majority of the residents
surrounding the tower site, is belied by the alleged Conformity of Host
Community(Residential)AnnexCshouldbeAnnex3whereonlya
handful of residents signed the document prepared by [petitioner] and the
contentsofwhichweremisrepresentedby[a]SangguniangBayanMemberin
thepersonofNickSebastianwhoisaninterestedpartybeingtheownerofthe
landwherethetowerisconstructed.ItwasmisrepresentedtoLinaflorAldecoa,
wifeof[respondent]ArsenioAldecoathatitwasalreadyanywayapprovedand
signedbyBarangayCaptainJoseTorrewhenintruthhissignaturewasagain
forgedbythe[petitioner]and/oritsemployeesoragentsorpersonworkingfor
said company. Also, there are persons who are not residents of Vira, Roxas,
IsabelawhosignedthedocumentsuchasMelanioC.GapultosofRizal,Roxas,
Isabela, Carlito Castillo of Nuesa, Roxas, Isabela, and another, Gennie
FelicianofromSanAntonio,Roxas,Isabela.Cer
404
404 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
tainly six (6) persons do not constitute the conformity of the majority of the
residentsofVira,Roxas,Isabela,andthoseimmediatelyaffectedbythecellsite
tower like [respondents]. This document is likewise flawed and cannot help
[petitioners]cause.Besides,[respondents]andotherresidents,sixtytwo(62)
of them, communicated their protest against the erection of the cell tower
specifyingtheirreasonsthereforandexpressingtheirsentimentsandfearsabout
[petitioners] communications tower, xerox copy attached as Annex A and
madeintegralparthereof
[Respondents]likewisespecificallydenythetruthoftheallegationinparagraph
12oftheanswer,thetruthbeingthatthelotleasedto[petitioner]isownedby
SBMemberNickSebastianandthatFlorentinoSebastianisdummyingforthe
former in avoidance of possible antigraft charges against his son concerning
this project. It is also further denied for lack of knowledge or information
sufficienttoformabeliefastothetruththereof.Moreover,theleasecontract,
copynotannexedto[petitioners]answer,wouldautomaticallybeterminatedor
endedintheeventofcomplaintsand/orprotestsfromtheresidents[.]8
_______________
8Id.,atpp.4546.
9Id.,atp.57.
405
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 405
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
areaandif[respondents]areentitledtomoralandexemplarydamages
aswellasattorneysfeesandexpensesoflitigation.
4.2.Whetherthecomplaintshouldbedismissedinthattheclaim
or demand set forth in the Complaint is fictitious, imaginary, sham
andwithoutanyrealbasis.
4.3.What [petitioner] SMART is entitled under its compulsory
counterclaimagainst[respondents]formoralandexemplarydamages,
attorneysfees,andotherexpensesoflitigation.10
_______________
10Id.,atp.63.
406
406 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
Wherefore,itismostrespectfullyprayedofthisHonorableCourtthat
summaryjudgmentberenderedpursuanttoRule35oftheRevisedRules
ofCourt.11
407
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 407
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
sionoftime,filedtheirMemorandum16on November22,2000. In
theirMemorandum,respondentsadditionallyallegedthat:
_______________
16Id.,atpp.101110.
17Id.,atp.107.
408
408 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
thattheDepartmentofHealthwasmisled.Thisisamereconclusion
ofthe[respondents].
The [respondents] in opposing the Smarts construction of their
cellsite is anchored on the supposition that the operation of said
cellsite tower would pose a great hazard to the health of the alleged
cluster of residents nearby and the perceived danger that the said
tower might also collapse in case of a strong typhoon that fell the
MobilineCellsitetowerofMobiline(sic).Thestructuredbuiltofthe
SmartsCellsitetowerissimilartothatoftheMobiline.
Now,astotheCourtsassessmentofthecircumstancesobtaining,
wefindtheclaimofthe[respondents]tobehighlyspeculative,ifnot
an isolated one. Elsewhere, we find several cellsite towers scaterred
(sic) all over, both of the Smart, Globe, and others, nay even in
thickly populated areas like in Metro Manila and also in key cities
nationwide, yet they have not been outlawed or declared nuisance as
the[respondents]nowwantthisCourttoheed.Tothethinkingofthe
Court, the [respondents] are harping imagined perils to their health
forreasononlyknowntothemperhapsespeciallywerewetoconsider
that the Brgy. Captain of Vira earlier gave its imprimatur to this
project. Noteworthy is the fact that the alleged cluster of residential
houses that abut the cellsite tower in question might be endangered
thereby,the[respondents]arebutafewofthoseresidents.Ifindeed,
all those residents in Vira were adversely affected for the perceived
hazards posed by the tower in question, they should also have been
joined in as [respondents] in a class suit. The sinister motive is
perhapsobvious.
All the foregoing reasons impel this Court to grant the
[petitioners]motionforthedismissalofthecomplaint,theperceived
dangers being highly speculative without any bases in fact.
Allegations in the complaint being more imaginary than real, do not
constitutefactualbasestorequirefurtherproceedingoratrial.Asto
theclaimthatthereisnocertificationorclearancefromtheDENRfor
the[petitioner]tolayinwaitbeforetheconstruction,sufficeittosay
thatnoactionasyethasbeen
409
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 409
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
takenbysaidofficetostoptheongoingoperationofsaidcellsitenow
in operation. There has been no hue and cry from among the greater
majorityofthepeopleofRoxas,Isabela,againstit.Alcontrario,itis
most welcome to them as this is another landmark towards the
progressofthistown.18
ThedispositiveportionoftheRTCOrderreads:
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoingconsiderations,theCourt
hereby renders judgment dismissing the complaint as the allegations
therein are purely speculative and hence no basis in fact to warrant
furtherproceedingsofthiscase.
TheCourtfindsnocompellinggroundstoawarddamages.
Withoutcosts.19
_______________
18Rollo,pp.127128.
19Id.,atp.128.
20Id.,atp.136.
410
410 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
_______________
21Id.,atp.56.
22CARollo,pp.9396.
23Rollo,p.59.
411
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 411
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
_______________
24Id.,atpp.1516.
412
412 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
OnthefindingoftheCourtof
Appealsthatpetitionerslocational
clearanceforitscellularbasestation
isanullity
Basedontheprincipleofexhaustionofadministrativeremedies
and its corollary doctrine of primary jurisdiction, it was premature
for the Court of Appeals to take cognizance of and rule upon the
issueofthevalidityornullityofpetitionerslocationalclearancefor
itscellularbasestation.
The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction were explained at length by the
CourtinProvinceofZamboangadelNortev.CourtofAppeals,25as
follows:
The Court in a long line of cases has held that before a party is
allowedtoseektheinterventionofthecourts,itisapreconditionthat
heavailhimselfofalladministrativeprocessesaffordedhim.Hence,
ifaremedywithintheadministrativemachinerycanberesortedtoby
giving the administrative officer every opportunity to decide on a
matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy must be
exhausted first before the courts power of judicial review can be
sought. The premature resort to the court is fatal to ones cause of
action. Accordingly, absent any finding of waiver or estoppel, the
casemaybedismissedforlackofcauseofaction.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not
withoutitspracticalandlegalreasons.Indeed,resorttoadministrative
remediesentailslesserexpensesandprovidesforspeedierdisposition
of controversies. Our courts of justice for reason of comity and
convenience will shy away from a dispute until the system of
administrativeredresshasbeencompletedandcompliedwithsoasto
give the administrative agency every opportunity to correct its error
andtodisposeofthecase.
_______________
25396Phil.709,717720342SCRA549,557560(2000).
413
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 413
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
xxxx
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to
arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the
jurisdictionoverwhichisinitiallylodgedwithanadministrativebody
ofspecialcompetence.
We have held that while the administration grapples with the
complex and multifarious problems caused by unbridled exploitation
of our resources, the judiciary will stand clear. A long line of cases
establishes the basic rule that the court will not interfere in matters
which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies
entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special
technicalknowledgeandtrainingofsuchagencies.
In fact, a party with an administrative remedy must not merely
initiate the prescribed administrative procedure to obtain relief, but
also pursue it to its appropriate conclusion before seeking judicial
intervention. The underlying principle of the rule on exhaustion of
administrative remedies rests on the presumption that when the
administrative body, or grievance machinery, is afforded a chance to
pass upon the matter, it will decide the same correctly. (Citations
omitted.)
_______________
26G.R.No.175039,April18,2012,670SCRA83,8990.
27546Phil.87517SCRA255(2007).
414
414 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
TheHousingandLandUseRegulatoryBoard(HLURB)28isthe
planning,regulatory,andquasijudicialinstrumentality
_______________
28 Executive Order No. 648, series of 1981, established the Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission (HSRC). Subsequently, Executive Order No. 90, series of
1986,renamedtheHSRCastheHLURB.
415
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 415
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
_______________
29http://hlurb.gov.ph/lawsissuances2/?tabgarb=tab1
415
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 415
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
theproposedsiteofthebasestation.(RefertoFigure2)
xxxx
h.BarangayCouncilResolutionendorsingthebasestation.
RULEIII
CommencementofAction,SummonsandAnswer
xxxx
SECTION2.Opposition to Application for
Permit/License/Clearance.When an opposition is filed to an
applicationforalicense,permitorclearancewiththeBoardoranyof
its Regional Field Office, the Regional Officer shall make a
preliminary evaluation and determination whether the case is
impressed with significant economic, social, environmental or
nationalpolicy
417
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 417
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
implications.Ifhe/shedeterminesthatthecaseissoimpressedwith
significant economic, social, environmental or national policy
implications,suchas,butnotlimitedto:
1)Projectsofnationalsignificance,forpurposesofthisrule,a
project is of national significance if it is one or falls under any of
thoseenumeratedinRuleIII,Section3oftheseRules,asamended
2)Thoseinvolvingzoningvariancesandexceptions
3)Thoseinvolvingsignificantpublicinterestorpolicyissues
4)Those endorsed by the zoning administrators of local
governmentunits.
The Regional Officer shall cause the records of the case to be
transmittedtotheExecutiveCommitteewhichshallassumeoriginal
jurisdictionover the case, otherwise, the Regional Officer shall act
onandresolvetheOpposition.
SECTION3.A project is of national significance if it
involvesanyofthefollowing:
a)Power generating plants (e.g., coalfired thermal plants) and
relatedfacilities(e.g.,transmissionlines)
b)Airport/seaportsdumpingsites/sanitarylandfillsreclamation
projects
c)Largescalepiggeryandpoultryprojects
d)Mining/quarryingprojects
e)Nationalgovernmentcenters
f)Golfcourses
g)Fishpondsandaquacultureprojects
h)Cellsitesandtelecommunicationfacilities
i) Economic zones, regional industrial centers, regional agro
industrialcenters,provincialindustrialcenters
418
418 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
419
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 419
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
RULEXII
PetitionforReview
SECTION1.PetitionforReview.Anypartyaggrievedbythe
Decision of the Regional Officer, on any legal ground and upon
paymentofthereviewfeemayfilewiththeRegionalOfficeaverified
PetitionforReviewofsuchdecisionwithinthirty(30)calendardays
fromreceiptthereof.IncasesdecidedbytheExecutiveCommittee
pursuant to Rule II, Section 2 of these Rules, as amended, the
verified Petition shall be filed with the Executive Committee
withinthirty(30)calendardaysfromreceiptoftheCommittees
Decision.Copyofsuchpetitionshallbefurnishedtheotherpartyand
theBoardofCommissioners.Nomotionforreconsiderationormere
noticeofpetitionforreviewofthedecisionshallbeentertained.
Within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the petition, the
Regional Officer, or the Executive Committee, as the case may be,
shallelevatetherecordstotheBoardofCommissionertogetherwith
thesummaryofproceedingsbeforetheRegionalOffice.ThePetition
for Review of a decision rendered by the Executive Committee
shallbetakencognizanceofbytheBoardenbanc.
420
420 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
RULEXVIII
AppealfromBoardDecisions
SECTION1.Motion for Reconsideration.Within the period
for filing an appeal from a Board decision, order or ruling of the
Board of Commissioners, any aggrieved party may file a motion for
reconsideration with the Board only on the following grounds: (1)
serious errors of law which would result in grave injustice if not
correctedand(2)newlydiscoveredevidence.
Onlyone(1)motionforreconsiderationshallbeentertained.
Motionsforreconsiderationshallbeassignedtothedivisionfrom
whichthedecision,orderorrulingoriginated.
SECTION2.Appeal.AnypartymayuponnoticetotheBoard
and the other party appeal a decision rendered by the Board of
CommissionersenbancorbyoneofitsdivisionstotheOfficeofthe
President within fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt thereof, in
accordancewithP.D.No.1344andA.O.No.18Seriesof1987.
RULEXIX
EntryofJudgment
xxxx
SECTION2.Rules on Finality.For purposes of determining
whenadecisionororderhasbecomefinalandexecutoryforpurposes
ofentryintheBookofJudgment,thefollowingshallbeobserved:
a.Unless otherwise provided in a decision or resolution
renderedbytheRegionalOfficer,theExecutiveCommittee,or
the Board of Commissioners, as the case may be, the orders
contained therein shall become final as regards a party thirty
(30)calendardaysafterthedateofreceiptthereofandno
421
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 421
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
_______________
30 In Republic v. Lacap (supra note 27 at pp. 9798), the Court enumerated the
exceptions:(a)wherethereisestoppelonthepartofthepartyinvokingthedoctrine
(b)wherethechallengedadministrativeactispatentlyillegal,amountingto lack of
jurisdiction (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will
irretrievablyprejudicethecomplainant(d)wheretheamountinvolvedisrelatively
small so as to make the rule impractical and oppressive (e) where the question
involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of
justice(f)wherejudicialinterventionisurgent(g)whenitsapplicationmaycause
greatandirreparabledamage(h)wherethecontrovertedactsviolatedueprocess(i)
whentheissueofnonexhaustionofadministrativeremedieshasbeenrenderedmoot
(j)whenthereisnootherplain,speedyandadequateremedy(k)whenstrongpublic
interestisinvolvedand,(l)inquowarrantoproceedings.
422
422 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
Thetermnuisanceissocomprehensivethatithasbeenapplied
to almost all ways which have interfered with the rights of the
citizens,eitherinperson,property,theenjoymentofhisproperty,or
hiscomfort.31
_______________
31ACEnterprises,Inc.v.FrabellePropertiesCorporation,537Phil.114,143506
SCRA625,656(2006).
423
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 423
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
The Court, in AC Enterprises, Inc. v. Frabelle Properties
Corporation,32settledthatasimplesuitforabatementofnuisance,
being incapable of pecuniary estimation, is within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the RTC. Although respondents also prayed for
judgment for moral and exemplary damages, attorneys fees, and
litigation expenses, such claims are merely incidental to or as a
consequenceof,theirprincipalrelief.
Nonetheless, while jurisdiction over respondents Complaint for
abatementofnuisancelieswiththecourts,therespectivejudgments
oftheRTCandtheCourtofAppealscannotbeupheld.
At theoutset,theRTC erred in granting petitioners Motion for
Summary Judgment and ordering the dismissal of respondents
ComplaintinCivilCaseNo.Br.236322000.
Summary judgments are governed by Rule 35 of the Rules of
Court,pertinentprovisionsofwhichstate:
_______________
32Id.,atpp.142143p.655.
424
424 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
Forasummaryjudgmenttobeproper,themovantmustestablish
two requisites: (a) there must be no genuine issue as to any material
fact, except for the amount of damages and (b) the party presenting
themotionforsummaryjudgmentmustbeentitledtoajudgmentasa
matteroflaw.Where,onthebasisofthepleadingsofamovingparty,
including documents appended thereto, no genuine issue as to a
material fact exists, the burden to produce a genuine issue shifts to
the opposing party. If the opposing party fails, the moving party is
entitledtoasummaryjudgment.
A genuine issue is an issue of fact which requires the
presentationofevidenceasdistinguishedfromanissuewhichisa
sham, fictitious, contrived or a false claim. The trial court can
determine a genuine issue on the basis of the pleadings, admissions,
documents, affidavits or counteraffidavits submitted by the parties.
When the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, then
there is no real or genuine issue or question as to any fact and
summary judgment called for. On the other hand, where the facts
pleadedbythepartiesaredisputedorcontested,proceedingsfor
a summary judgment cannot take the place of a trial. The
evidenceonrecordmustbeviewedinlightmostfavorabletothe
party opposing the motion who must be given the benefit of all
favorable inferences as can reasonably be drawn from the
evidence.
Courtsmustbecriticalofthepaperspresentedbythemoving
party and not of the papers/documents in opposition thereto.
Conclusory assertions are insufficient to raise an issue of material
fact.Apartycannotcreateagenuinedisputeofmaterialfactthrough
merespeculationsorcompilationofdiffer
_______________
33521Phil.628,648649487SCRA512,535536(2006).
425
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 425
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
Judgingbytheaforequotedstandards,summaryjudgmentcannot
berenderedinthiscaseasthereareclearlyfactualissuesdisputedor
contested by the parties. As respondents correctly argued in their
OppositiontopetitionersMotionforSummaryJudgment:
1.Contrarytotheclaimof[petitioner],thereareseveralgenuine
issues as to the cause of action and material facts related to the
complaint.Foronethereisanissueonthestructuralintegrityofthe
tower, the ultra high frequency (UHF) radio wave emission radiated
bythecommunicationstoweraffectingthelife,healthandwellbeing
of the [respondents] and the barangay residents, especially their
children. Also, the noxious/deleterious fumes and the noise
produce[d] by the standby generator and the danger posted by the
towerifitcollapsesinregardtolifeandlimbaswellastheproperty
of the [respondents] particularly those whose houses abut, or are
near/withintheperipheryofthecommunicationstower.xxx34
Likewiseconstitutingrealorgenuineissuesfortrial,whicharose
from subsequent events, are the following: whether the generator
subjectofrespondentsComplainthadbeenremovedwhethersaid
generator had been replaced by another that produces as much or
evenmorenoiseandfumesandwhetherthegeneratorisanuisance
that can be abated separately from the rest of the cellular base
station.
_______________
34Records,p.82.
426
426 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
Furthermore,theCourtdemonstratedinACEnterprises,Inc.the
extensive factual considerations of a court before it can arrive at a
judgmentinanactionforabatementofnuisance:
427
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 427
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
withreasonableregardfortherightsofthoseaffectedbyit.
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. The fact that the cause of the complaint must be
substantial has often led to expressions in the opinions that to be a
nuisance the noise must be deafening or loud or excessive and
unreasonable.Thedeterminingfactorwhennoisealoneisthecauseof
complaintisnotitsintensityorvolume.Itisthatthenoiseisofsuch
characterastoproduceactualphysicaldiscomfortandannoyanceto
a person of ordinary sensibilities, rendering adjacent property less
comfortableandvaluable.Ifthenoisedoesthatitcanwellbesaidto
be substantial and unreasonable in degree, and reasonableness is a
questionoffactdependentuponallthecircumstancesandconditions.
Therecanbenofixedstandardastowhatkindofnoiseconstitutesa
nuisance.
Thecourtshavemadeitclearthatineverycasethequestionisone
of reasonableness. What is a reasonable use of ones property and
whetheraparticularuseisanunreasonableinvasionofanothersuse
andenjoymentofhispropertysoastoconstituteanuisancecannotbe
determined by exact rules, but must necessarily depend upon the
circumstances of each case, such as locality and the character of the
surroundings,thenature,utilityandsocialvalueoftheuse,theextent
andnatureoftheharminvolved,thenature,utilityandsocialvalueof
theuseorenjoymentinvaded,andthelike.
Personswho live or work in thickly populated business districts
mustnecessarilyenduretheusualannoyancesandofthosetradesand
businesses which are properly located and carried on in the
neighborhood where they live or work. But these annoyances and
discomfortsmustnotbemorethanthoseordinarilytobeexpectedin
the community or district, and which are incident to the lawful
conductofsuchtradesand businesses. If they exceed what might be
reasonablyexpectedandcause unnecessary harm, then the court will
grantrelief.
428
428 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
Afinding by the LGU that the noise quality standards under the
lawhavenotbeencompliedwithisnotaprerequisitenorconstitutes
indispensable evidence to prove that the defendant is or is not liable
foranuisanceandfordamages.Suchfindingismerelycorroborative
tothetestimonialand/orotherevidencetobepresentedbytheparties.
The exercise of due care by the owner of a business in its operation
does not constitute a defense where, notwithstanding the same, the
business as conducted, seriously affects the rights of those in its
vicinity.35(Citationsomitted.)
_______________
35ACEnterprises,Inc.v.FrabellePropertiesCorporation,supra note 31 at pp.
149151pp.663665.
429
VOL.705,SEPTEMBER11,2013 429
SmartCommunications,Inc.vs.Aldecoa
phoneservices,thewiseandprudentcoursetotakeistoremandthe
case to the RTC for trial and give the parties the opportunity to
provetheirrespectivefactualclaims.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is
PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated July 16, 2004 and
ResolutiondatedDecember9,2004oftheCourtofAppealsinCA
G.R. CV No. 71337 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Let the
records of the case be REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 23, of Roxas, Isabela, which is DIRECTED to reinstate
CivilCaseNo.Br.236322000toitsdocketandproceedwiththe
trial and adjudication thereof with appropriate dispatch in
accordancewiththisDecision.
SOORDERED.
Sereno(CJ.,Chairperson),Bersamin,Villarama,Jr.andReyes,
JJ.,concur.
Petitionpartiallygranted,judgmentandresolutionreversedand
setaside.Caseremandedtotrialcourtwhichisorderedtoreinstate
CivilCaseNo.Br.236322000toitsdocket.
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.