Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Velasco v. Meralco Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Massabielle
    The plaintiff, Velasco, owned property adjacent to property purchased by Meralco, where Meralco constructed an electrical substation. Velasco claimed the noise emanating from the substation constituted a nuisance that worsened his health and lowered his property value. Testimony from witnesses was imprecise, so sound level meters were used, finding the sound exceeded average residential levels. The court found the noise did constitute an actionable nuisance under the Civil Code, as it caused physical discomfort and annoyance. Velasco's physicians testified the noise caused health issues. Damages of 20,000 pesos were awarded to Velasco, and Meralco was ordered to reduce the noise level at the property line to 40-50 decib

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Velasco v. Meralco Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Massabielle
    1K views2 pages
    The plaintiff, Velasco, owned property adjacent to property purchased by Meralco, where Meralco constructed an electrical substation. Velasco claimed the noise emanating from the substation constituted a nuisance that worsened his health and lowered his property value. Testimony from witnesses was imprecise, so sound level meters were used, finding the sound exceeded average residential levels. The court found the noise did constitute an actionable nuisance under the Civil Code, as it caused physical discomfort and annoyance. Velasco's physicians testified the noise caused health issues. Damages of 20,000 pesos were awarded to Velasco, and Meralco was ordered to reduce the noise level at the property line to 40-50 decib

    Original Description:

    digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiff, Velasco, owned property adjacent to property purchased by Meralco, where Meralco constructed an electrical substation. Velasco claimed the noise emanating from the substation constituted a nuisance that worsened his health and lowered his property value. Testimony from witnesses was imprecise, so sound level meters were used, finding the sound exceeded average residential levels. The court found the noise did constitute an actionable nuisance under the Civil Code, as it caused physical discomfort and annoyance. Velasco's physicians testified the noise caused health issues. Damages of 20,000 pesos were awarded to Velasco, and Meralco was ordered to reduce the noise level at the property line to 40-50 decib

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Velasco v. Meralco Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Massabielle
    The plaintiff, Velasco, owned property adjacent to property purchased by Meralco, where Meralco constructed an electrical substation. Velasco claimed the noise emanating from the substation constituted a nuisance that worsened his health and lowered his property value. Testimony from witnesses was imprecise, so sound level meters were used, finding the sound exceeded average residential levels. The court found the noise did constitute an actionable nuisance under the Civil Code, as it caused physical discomfort and annoyance. Velasco's physicians testified the noise caused health issues. Damages of 20,000 pesos were awarded to Velasco, and Meralco was ordered to reduce the noise level at the property line to 40-50 decib

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    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.

    You might also like