ILOIOLO COLD STORAGE CO VS MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

FACTS: Iloilo Cold Storage Co. constructed an ice and cold storage plant in Iloilo City.
Sometime after the plant was completed and in operation, nearby residents made
complaints to the Municipal Council that the smoke from the plant was very injurious to
their health and comfort.

Council appointed committee to investigate and report upon the matters in the
complaint. Council passed a resolution giving Company 1 month to elevate their
smokestacks or else their operations will be stopped or suspended.

ISSUE: WON a municipal corporation can declare the companys plant a nuisance as
operated and prescribe method of abating it

HELD: No. Nuisance is anything that work hurt, inconvenience or damage (Blackstone)
Two classes are:
a. Nuisance per se nuisances under any and all circumstances.
b. Nuisance per accidens nuisance only because of the special circumstances
and conditions surrounding it

Municipal councils have under the code the power to declare and abate nuisances but
they do not have the power to find as a fact that a particular thing is a nuisance when
such a thing is not a nuisance per se. Neither can they authorize the extrajudicial
condemnation and destruction of a thing as a nuisance which in its nature situation or
use is not such. These things must be determined in the ordinary courts of law.

However, a nuisance which affects the immediate safety of persons or properties or
those presenting an emergency may be summarily abated under the undefined law of
necessity.

In this case, the plant is not a nuisance per se. It is a legitimate industry beneficial to the
people and conducive to their health and comfort.

If it were in fact a nuisance due to the manner of its operation, that question cannot be
determined by a mere resolution of the board. The company is entitled to a fair and
impartial hearing before a judicial tribunal.












ILOILO COLD STORAGE V. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF ILOILO 24 PHIL 471 (1913)

FACTS: Plaintiff Iloilo Cold Storage, upon authority granted by defendant Municipal
council, constructed and ice and cold storage in the city of Iloilo. Sometime after, nearby
residents made complaints to the defendant that the smoke was very harmful to their
health and comfort. As such, the Municipal council appointed a committee to
investigate.
1. Based on the findings of the committee, the Municipal council issued a resolution
giving the plaintiff one month to elevate said smokestacks to 100 feet otherwise
the Municipal will issue an order closing or suspending the operations of said
establishment
2. Plaintiff, then, filed an action with CFI to enjoin the defendant from carrying into
effect said resolution. A preliminary injunction was subsequently issued in favor
of plaintiff
3. In a special defense, Municipal council alleged that:
a. The factory was constructed in a central and populated district of the
municipality
b. The quantity of smoke discharged from the factory is so great and dense that
it penetrates into the dwelling houses situated near it and causes great
annoyance to the residents and prejudice to their health
c. Plaintiff has no right to maintain and operate machinery in its factory under
the conditions it is at present without complying with the regulations which
were imposed upon it when the license for its installation was granted

ISSUE: WON a municipal corporation can declare the companys plant a nuisance as
operated and prescribe a method of abating it

HELD: No. The municipal council is, under section 39 (j) of the Municipal Code,
specifically empowered "to declare and abate nuisances."

Nuisance is anything that work hurt, inconvenience or damage (Blackstone). Nuisances
have been divided into two classes: Nuisances per se, and nuisances per accidens.
a. Nuisance per se -- those which are unquestionably and under all circumstances
nuisances, such as gambling houses, houses of ill fame, etc. The number of
such nuisances is necessarily limited, and by far the greater number of
nuisances are such because of particular facts and circumstances surrounding
the otherwise harmless cause of the nuisance.
b. Nuisance per accidens nuisance only because of the special circumstances
and conditions surrounding it

It is clear that municipal councils have, under the code, the power to declare and
abate nuisances, but it is equally clear that they do not have the power to find as
a fact that a particular thing is a nuisance when such thing is not a nuisance per
se; nor can they authorize the extrajudicial condemnation and destruction of that
as a nuisance which in its nature, situation, or use is not such. These things must
be determined in the ordinary courts of law.
In the present case, it is certain that the ice factory of the plaintiff is not a nuisance per
se. It is a legitimate industry, beneficial to the people, and conducive to their health and
comfort. If it be in fact a nuisance due to the manner of its operation, that question
cannot de determined by a mere resolution of the board. The petitioner is entitled to a
fair and impartial hearing before a judicial tribunal.







































VELASCO V. MERALCO

Noise may constitute a nuisance but it must be of such character as to produce actual
physical discomfort and annoyance to a person of ordinary sensibilities.

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 appellants 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. Such, appellant contends,
constitute 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. Resort was made to a sound level meter. The audible sound from
different areas in Velascos property was measured in terms of decibels. It was found
that the sound exceeded the average intensity levels of residences.

ISSUE: Can there be a nuisance caused by noise or sound?

HELD: Yes. 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, appellants 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 appellants physicians
(which were more reliable since they actually treated him, unlike the appellees) 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.
But Meralco was ordered either to transfer the facilities or reduce the produced sound to
around.