Loud noises from a school such as those from drums and bugles, teachers speaking through microphones and megaphones, and students cheering and shouting are not considered nuisances that may subject a school to damages.

In a decision, the SC ruled that academic noise and sounds from legitimate school activities are not nuisances that disturb and interfere with a person’s comfort, property, or enjoyment.

Written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC said that for someone to be liable for damages, the noise must be strong enough to harm or threaten health or safety, or to annoy or offend an ordinary and reasonable person.

In a summary of the decision issued by the SC’s Office of the Spokesperson, the High Court clarified that determining whether a noise is a nuisance requires more than just considering the location, environment, and its effect on residents.

The SC said: “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. 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.”

The case arose from the complaint filed by the residents of Saint Joseph subdivision in Barangay Villa Kananga in Butuan City against the Couples for Christ School of the Morning Star which is located in the same barangay (village).

The residents told the regional trial court (RTC) that they have been exposed to loud noises from the school such as those from drums and bugles, teachers speaking through microphones and megaphones, and students running, cheering and shouting during games played at the multipurpose center.

They claimed that the sounds, heard day and night, disturbed their sleep and peace at home.

The school told the trial court that it has been operating since 2012 with the necessary permits and clearances. It pointed out that the noise comes only during regular classes, and that the City Environment and Natural Resources Office conducted a test and found the noise within the allowed limits for residential areas.

At the same time, the school told the court that it has taken steps to reduce the noise such as building higher fences, planting trees, using small speakers, and limiting activities to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on schooldays.

The RTC dismissed the complaint and ruled that the residents failed to prove that they were harmed by the noise.

Also, the trial court ruled that the school did not intend to harm the residents and acted in good faith by taking steps to reduce the noise.

However, on appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC and ruled in favor of the residents.

The CA ruled that the school’s noise, which came not only from classes but from other social functions in the multi-purpose hall, was a nuisance that caused discomfort and annoyance to the residents.

The school elevated the case to the SC which granted its petition.

The SC said that the complaining residents failed to prove that the noise was unreasonably disturbing and that it worsened their health conditions.

It also said that the residents’ statements showed only minor discomforts, not serious harm.

It pointed out that while location and environment are important in determining a nuisance, they must be weighed against whether the noise is normally expected from the activity involved.

In the case appealed by the school, the SC said that the sounds complained of did not go beyond what could be reasonably expected from a school.

It stressed that there is no nuisance if an ordinary person would not find the sound disturbing, even if someone else is unusually sensitive to it.

It ruled that damages cannot be claimed for alleged abuse of rights under the Civil Code as it found that the school did not intend to harm or annoy the residents and had taken steps to reduce the noise.

There was no evidence that the school caused the noise willfully, with malice or bad faith, it also ruled.