Law on Environment and

Natural Resources

SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

VS.
ALDECOA

DAN VINCENT M. SORIANO

Universidad de Manila
January 28, 2019
 ISSUES
• The Court of Appeals erred when it encroached upon an
executive function of determining the validity of a
locational clearance when it declared, contrary to the
administrative findings of the Housing Land Use and
Regulatory Board (HLURB), that the locational clearance
of petitioner was void.

• The Court of Appeals erred in declaring Petitioner’s base

station a nuisance considering that it was only a small part
of the base station, a generator that initially powered the
base station, that was reportedly producing unacceptable
noise.
 ISSUES

• The Court of Appeals erred in not considering that the

supervening event of shut down and pull out of the
generator in the base station, the source of the
perceived nuisance, made the complaint for
abatement of nuisance academic.
 RULES AND REGULATIONS

• Principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies

• Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

• Article 694 of the Civil Code

 ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER RESPONDENTS
• Petitioner applied for a Building •SMART’s tower being constructed is
Permit through the office of Municipal weak, unstable, and infirm,
engineer and received its approval. susceptible to collapse which poses
•Petitioner, through Allarilla applied great danger to life and limb of
for an Environmental Compliance persons as well as their property.
Certificate, still pending in the DENR. •The tower is powered by a standby
•Petitioner secured the consent of the generator that emits noxious and
majority of the residents. deleterious fumes, produces constant
•Petitioner did not forge the Barangay noise, hazardous to health of
Certification and secured the consent respondents and residents in the area.
of Barangay Captain Jose Torre. •Petitioner constructed without
•Petitioner Tower’s safety has been necessary public hearing, brgy permit,
pre-cleared and is unlikely to cause Environmental Compliance Certificate
harm in exposing the members of the and other requirements of NTC.
public.
 ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER
• The structural stability and
soundness of the Tower has been
certified Engineering Consulting firm
Microflect as contained in their Stress
Analysis Report.
•Petitioner’s impetus to push through
with the construction of the Tower is
spurred by the Telecommunications
Act of 1995 or RA 7925 which states
that the “expansion of the
telecommunications network shall
give priority to improving and
extending basic services to areas not
yet served.”
RESPONDENTS
•Petitioner’s cell site relay antenna
operates on the Ultra High Frequency
band that generated dangerously high
radiation.
•Petitioner’s application for building
permit covered only a building and
not a cell site antenna tower.
•Respondents may yield to the
mandate of RA 7925 but this should
not be taken as a license to gamble
and/or destroy the health and well-
being of the people.
 ANALYSIS OF FACTS
It was premature for the Court of Appeals to take
cognizance of and rule upon the issue of the validity or nullity
of petitioner’s locational clearance for its cellular base station.
The Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board is the planning,
regulatory, and quasi-judicial instrumentality of government
for land use development. There is no showing that
respondents availed themselves of the administrative remedies
prior to instituting a case before the RTC.
Commercial and industrial activities which are lawful in
themselves may become nuisances if they are so offensive to
the senses that may render the enjoyment of life and property
uncomfortable.
 CONCLUSION
Failure to comply with the principle of exhaustion of
administrative remedies and doctrine of primary jurisdiction will
result in the dismissal of the case for lack of cause of action.
However, the Court does not lose sight of the fact that the
respondents’ complaint is primarily for the abatement of nuisance;
and respondents alleged the lack HLURB requirements for the
cellular base station, not to seek nullification of petitioner’s
locational clearance, but to support their chief argument that said
cellular base station is a nuisance.

The instant petition was partially granted. The decision of the

Court of Appeals were reversed and set aside and the case be
remanded to the Regional Trial Court, which is directed to reinstate
the case to its docket and proceed with the trial.