Case Digest: Ortigas & Co. vs Feati Bank & Trust Co.

of RA 2264 of the Local Autonomy Act empowers a Municipal

Council to adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations
Facts: for the Municipality. Section 12 or RA 2264 states that implied
power of the municipality should be “liberally construed in it’s
On March 4, 1952, Ortigas sold Lot 5 and 6, Block 31 of the Highway favour”, “to give more power to the local government in promoting
Hills Subdivision at Mandaluyong to Augusto Padilla y Angeles and economic conditions, social welfare, and material progress in the
Natividad Angeles. The latter transferred their rights in favour of community”. This is found in the General Welfare Clause of the said
Emma Chavez, upon completion of payment a deed was executed act. Although non-impairment of contracts is constitutionally
with stipulations, one of which is that the use of the lots are to be guaranteed, it is not absolute since it has to be reconciled with the
exclusive for residential purposes only. This was annotated in the legitimate exercise of police power, e.g. the power to promote
Transfer Certificate of Titles No. 101509 and 101511. Feati then health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general
acquired Lot 5 directly from Emma Chavez and Lot 6 from Republic welfare of the people. Resolution No. 27 was obviously passed in
Flour Mills. On May 5, 1963, Feati started construction of a building exercise of police power to safeguard health, safety, peace and
on both lots to be devoted for banking purposes but could also be order and the general welfare of the people in the locality as it
for residential use. Ortigas sent a written demand to stop would not be a conducive residential area considering the amount
construction but Feati continued contending that the building was of traffic, pollution, and noise which results in the surrounding
being constructed according to the zoning regulations as stated in industrial and commercial establishments.
Municipal Resolution 27 declaring the area along the West part of
EDSA to be a commercial and industrial zone. Civil case No. 7706 Decision dismissing the complaint of Ortigas is AFFIRMED
was made and decided in favour of Feati.

Issue:

Whether or not Resolution number 27 declaring Lot 5 and 6 to be

part of an industrial and commercial zone is valid considering the
contract stipulation in the Transfer Certificate of Titles.

Held:

Resolution No. 27 prevails over the contract stipulations. Section 3

1
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPERS, INC v. CA

G.R. No. 94759, Jan. 21, 1991, 201 SCRA Technology Developers then instituted an action for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction against the
acting mayor with Bulacan RTC, alleging that the closure order was
FACTS: issued in grave abuse of discretion.

Technology Developers, a corporation engaged in the manufacture The RTC found that the issuance of the writ
and export of charcoal briquette, received a letter from acting of preliminary mandatory injunction was proper, ordering the acting
mayor Pablo Cruz: 1) ordering the full cessation of its plant in mayor to immediately revoke his closure order
Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan until further order, and 2) requesting and allow Technology Developers to resume its normal business
its Plant Manager to bring before the office of the mayor its building operations until the case has been adjudicated on the merits.
permit, mayor's permit, and Region III-Pollution of Environment and
Natural Resources Anti-Pollution Permit.
Upon MR, the Provincial Prosecutor presented evidence as to the
allegation that "Due to the manufacturing process and nature of
Technology Developers undertook to comply with the request to raw materials used, the fumes coming from the factory may contain
produce the required documents. It sought to secure the Region III- particulate matters which are hazardous to the health of the people.
Pollution of Environment and Natural Resources Anti-Pollution As such, the company should cease operating until such a time that
Permit although prior to the operation of the plant, a Temporary the proper air pollution device is installed and operational."
Permit to Operate Air Pollution Installation was issued to it.
Petitioners also sent its representatives to the office of the mayor to
secure a mayor’s permit but were not entertained. Reassessing the evidence, the RTC set aside its order granted the
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. The CA denied
Technology Developer's petition for certiorari for lack of merit.
Eventually, the acting mayor ordered that the plant premises be
padlocked, effectively causing the stoppage of operation. This was
done without previous and reasonable notice.

2
ISSUE:

2.  The Acting Mayor called the attention of petitioner to the

pollution emitted by the fumes of its plant whose offensive odor
W/N the acting mayor had a legal ground for ordering the stoppage "not only pollute the air in the locality but also affect the health of
of Technology Developer the residents in the area," so that petitioner was ordered to stop its
operation until further orders.

HELD: 3.  This action of the Acting Mayor was in response to the complaint
of the residents of Barangay Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, directed
to the Provincial Governor through channels.

YES. The following circumstances militate against the maintenance

of the writ of preliminary injunction sought by petitioner:
4.  The closure order of the Acting Mayor was issued only after an
investigation was made by Marivic Guina who in her report 
observed that the fumes emitted by the plant goes directly to the
1.  No mayor's permit had been secured. While it is true that the
surrounding houses and that no proper air pollution device has
matter of determining whether there is a pollution of the
been installed.
environment that requires control if not prohibition of the
operation of a business is essentially addressed to the
Environmental Management Bureau of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, it must be recognized that the 5.  Petitioner failed to produce a building permit from the
mayor of a town has as much responsibility to protect municipality of Sta. Maria, but instead presented a building permit
its inhabitants from pollution, and by virtue of his police power, he issued by an official of Makati on March 6, 1987.
may deny the application for a permit to operate a business or
otherwise close the same unless appropriate measures are taken to
control and/or avoid injury to the health of the residents of the 6.  While petitioner was able to present a temporary permit to
community from the emissions in the operation of the business. operate by the then National Pollution Control Commission on
December 15, 1987, the permit was good only up to May 25, 1988.

3
Petitioner had not exerted any effort to extend or validate its permit G.R. No. 166744. November 2, 2006.
much less to install any device to control the pollution and prevent
any hazard to the health of the residents of the community.
SCRA Citation:  506 SCRA 625

Court takes note of the plea of petitioner focusing on its huge

investment in this dollar-earning industry. It must be stressed DOCTRINE: Private and public nuisance; definition  –  The term
however, that concomitant with the need to promote investment “nuisance” is so comprehensive that it has been applied to almost
and contribute to the growth of the economy is the equally all ways which have interfered with the rights of the citizens, either
essential imperative of protecting the health, nay the very lives of in person, property, the enjoyment of property, or his comfort; A
the people, from the deleterious effect of the pollution of the private nuisance is one which violates only private rights and
environment. produces damage to but one or a few persons while a nuisance is
public when it interferes with the exercise of public right by directly
encroaching on public property or by causing a common injury, an
unreasonable interference with the right common to the general
public. In this case, the noise generated by an airconditioning
● The well-known rule is that the matter of issuance of a writ system is considered a private nuisance.
of preliminary injunction is addressed to the sound judicial
discretion of the trial court and its action shall not be disturbed on
appeal unless it is demonstrated that it acted without jurisdiction or
Noise emanating from air-con units not nuisance per se  –  Noise
in excess of jurisdiction or otherwise, in grave abuse of its
discretion. By the same token the court that issued such becomes actionable only when it passes the limits of reasonable
adjustment to the conditions of the locality and of the needs of the
a preliminary relief may recall or dissolve the writ as the
circumstances may warrant. maker to the needs of the listener; Injury to a particular person in a
peculiar position or of especially sensitive characteristics will not
render the noise an actionable nuisance. Whether or not the noise
is a nuisance is an issue to be resolved by the courts.
Petition denied.

AC Enterprises, Inc. vs. Frabelle Properties Corp.

4
Test to determine noise as a nuisance – The test is whether rights
of property, of health or of comfort are so injuriously affected by
the noise in question that the sufferer is subjected to a loss [i.e. (2) Is an action for abatement of a private nuisance, more
specifically noise generated by the blower of an air-conditioning
Actual Physical Discomfort]which goes beyond the reasonable limit
imposed upon him by the condition of living, or of holding property, system, even if the plaintiff prays for damages, one incapable of
pecuniary estimation?
in a particular locality in fact devoted to uses which involve the
emission of noise although ordinary care is taken to confine it within
reasonable bounds; or in the vicinity of property of another owner
who, though creating a noise, is acting with reasonable regard for (3) What is the determining factor when noise alone is the cause of
the rights of those affected by it. complaint?

Action to abate private nuisance; incapable of pecuniary HELD:

estiation  –  an action to abate private nuisance, even wehere the
(1) It is a nuisance to be resolved only by the courts in the due
plaintiff asks for damages is one incapable of pecuniary estimation
course of proceedings; the noise is not a nuisance per se.  Noise
becomes actionable only whenn it passes the limits of reasonable
adjustment to the conditions of the locality and of the needs of the
FACTS: AC enterprises (Petitioner) is a corporation owns a 10-storey maker to the needs of the listener. Injury to a particular person in a
building in Makati City. Frabelle (Respondent) is a condominium peculiar position or of especially sensitive characteristics will not
corporation who's condominium development is located behind render the house an actionable nuisance–– in the conditions, of
petitioner. Respondent complained of the 'unbearable” noise present living, noise seems inseparable from the conduct of many
emanating from the blower of the air-conditioning units of necessary occupations.
petitioner.

(2) Yes, the action is one incapable of pecuniary estimation because

ISSUES: the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of
money.
(1) Is it a nuisance as to be resolved only by the courts in the due
course of proceedings or  a nuisance per se?

5
(3) The determining factor is not its intensity or volume; it is that
the noise is of such character as to produce actual physical
discomfort and annoyance to a person of ordinary sensibilities
rendering adjacent property less comfortable and valuable.