Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage v.

Municipal Council
G.R. No. L-7012 March 26, 1913 J. Trent
petitioners Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Company
respondents Municipal Council of Iloilo
summary Iloilo Ice constructed an ice and cold storage plant. Residents complained, municipal
council passed resolution ordering Iloilo Ice to construct smokestacks. SC ruled that
municipal councils have the power to declare and abate nuisances, BUT they do not
have power to declare a particular thing as a nuisance when it is not a nusiance per se.
Such question can only be resolved in ordinary courts of law.

facts of the case

Iloilo Ice constructed an ice and cold storage plant in Iloilo City, after being granted authority by the
Municipal Council.
After the plant was completed, residents who lived near the plant complained to the Council that smoke
coming from the plant was injurious to their health and comfort.
The Council formed a committee to investigate the complaints. The committee found that the complaints
were well founded, so the Council passed a resolution ordering Iloilo Ice to construct smokestacks; failure
to comply with the same would force the municipal president to execute an order closing or suspending
the operations of Iloilo Ice.
Iloilo Ice commenced an action to enjoin the Council from carrying into effect the resolution, and a
preliminary injunction was issued. They maintained that they were not obliged to comply with the
directive to elevate the smokestacks one hundred ft and that the Council threatened to require compliance
with the resolution without the intervention of the court.
Council answered, denying the allegations in the complaint, asking that they be absolved from the
complaint and that Iloilo Ice be declared to have no right to the remedy asked for.
Iloilo Ice demurred to Council’s answer. Demurrer was sustained so the Council appealed before the SC.

issue
WON the municipal council has the power to declare Iloilo Ice’s plant a nuisance as operated and prescribe the
method to abate it. NO.

ratio
Under section 39(j) of the Municipal Code, the municipal council is specifically empowered to declare and
abate nuisances. HOWEVER, such power delegated upon the municipal council does NOT give them
unrestrained and absolute power in declaring ANYTHING to be a nuisance.

A nuisance according to Blackstone, is “anything that worketh hurt, inconvenience, or damages.” They arise
from pursuing particular trades or industries in populous neighborhoods; from acts of public indecency,
keeping disorderly houses and houses of ill fame, gambling houses, etc.

Nuisances are divided into two classes – nuisances per se and nuisances per accidens. To the first belong
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 those of the second class, which are nuisances per accidens, which arise from particular facts
and circumstances surrounding the otherwise harmless cause of the nuisance. Whether a thing is a nuisance
is generally a question of fact.

The Court then quoted a long line of US cases which basically bring home the point that municipal councils
have, under the code, the power to declare and abate nuisances; at the same time, however, it is 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
1
 nuisance which in its nature, situation, or use is not such. These things must be determined in courts of
law.

Applying such principles in the case, it is certain that the Iloilo Ice’s factory is NOT a nuisance per se. It is a
legitimate industry, beneficial to people. IF it is in fact a nuisance due to the manner of its operation
(nuisance per accidens), such question cannot be determined by the resolution of council, BUT rather by a
fair, impartial hearing which Iloilo Ice is entitled to.

Order sustaining Iloilo Ice’s demurrer to Council’s answer reversed. Case remanded to lower court.

Principles from some US cases (in case ma’am asks)

From Rutton vs City of Camden – “If a man's property cannot be taken away from him except upon trial by jury, or by the
exercise of the right of eminent domain upon compensation made, neither can be, in any other mode, be limited in the use
of it.”

“… The question of nuisance can conclusively be decided, for all legal uses, by the established courts of law or equity
alone, and that the resolutions of officers, or of boards organized by force of municipal charters, cannot, to any degree,
control such decision.”

Yates vs Milwaukee – “It is a doctrine not to be tolerated in this country, that a municipal corporation, without any
general laws either of the city or of the State, within which a given structure can be shown to be a nuisance, can, by its
mere declaration that it is one, subject it to removal by any person supposed to be aggrieved, or even by the city itself.
This would place every house, every business, and all the property of the city at the uncontrolled will of the temporary
local authorities.”

Cole vs Kegler – “We do not think the general assembly intended to confer on cities and towns the power of finally and
conclusively determine, without notice or a hearing, and without the right of appeal, that any given thing constitutes a
nuisance, unless, probably, in cases of great emergency, so strong as to justify extraordinary measures upon the ground of
paramount necessity.”

Grossman vs City of Oakland – “The character of the city confers upon it the power to prevent and restrain nuisances,
and to "declare what shall constitute a nuisance;" but this does not authorize it to declare a particular use of property a
nuisance, unless such use comes within the common law or statutory idea of a nuisance.”

Everett vs City of Council Bluffs – “The defendant is incorporated under a special charter, which provides that the city
council has power "to declare what shall be a nuisance, and to prevent, remove, or abate the same." This general grant of
power, however, will not authorize the council to declare anything a nuisance which is not such at common law, or has
been declared such by statute.”