Dear PAO,
An influencer recently went viral for her remarks about the noise of “hindi cute na bata” in a public place. While I do not condone hate toward children, I am experiencing a similar problem. In my case, our house is located near a private elementary school. During school activities, the noise becomes excessively loud and unbearable. In addition to this, the school bell rings at around 7 a.m. every morning, which regularly disrupts my sleep. Over time, this persistent noise has caused me stress and adversely affected my health. Given these circumstances, do I have a valid cause of action against the school for the disturbance it creates?
Irene
Dear Irene,
While we sympathize with your situation, the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court clarifies that not all noise may be deemed a nuisance. In Couples for Christ (CFC) School of the Morning Star et al. v. Wideline I. Malonda et al. (GR 278875, Nov. 26, 2025), the high court, speaking through Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, described “nuisance” as sufficiently comprehensive to encompass all forms of annoyance that interfere with a person’s property, comfort, or enjoyment. A nuisance may be public, when it impairs the exercise of a public right or causes common injury, or private when it violates private rights and causes damage to one or a few individuals.
In the same case, the high court ruled that “living in a densely populated country such as the Philippines, where houses and businesses are situated in close proximity, amplifies people’s sensitivity to noise, but not all kinds or levels of noise are actionable. Particularly, the Civil Code regards noise as a nuisance only when it reaches an intensity that injures or endangers the health or safety of others, or annoys or offends the senses. However, not all kinds or levels of noise are actionable. Particularly, the Civil Code regards noise as a nuisance only when it reaches an intensity that injures or endangers the health or safety of others, or annoys or offends the senses.”
Moreover, the Supreme Court underscored that sound levels alone are not determinative of the existence of a nuisance. There is no law providing that a mere breach of prescribed noise limits automatically results in a finding of nuisance. Thus, the fact that sound levels exceed those set by the National Pollution Control Commission or by local government units is not, by itself, conclusive of the existence of a nuisance.
In your situation, while your circumstances may appear intolerable, before filing a case, you must first establish that the noise exceeds what is reasonably expected from normal school operations. Not every disturbance is actionable, but the law requires proof that the interference is substantial, unreasonable, and beyond what persons of ordinary sensibilities are expected to endure. Furthermore, it must be shown that the noise constitutes a nuisance, which causes substantial injury or disturbance and is either intentional or arises from unnecessary or excessive acts done without regard to others’ rights. Otherwise, it is deemed a mere incidental result of legitimate school operations, for which no liability attaches.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net
