0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
100 tayangan6 halaman
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of Smart Communications. The appellate court found that there were genuine issues of material fact in dispute, including whether the cellular base station was properly approved and whether it exceeded noise emission standards. It declared the base station a nuisance and ordered its abatement. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, finding that determining if the specific base station was a nuisance required resolving contested factual issues at trial.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of Smart Communications. The appellate court found that there were genuine issues of material fact in dispute, including whether the cellular base station was properly approved and whether it exceeded noise emission standards. It declared the base station a nuisance and ordered its abatement. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, finding that determining if the specific base station was a nuisance required resolving contested factual issues at trial.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of Smart Communications. The appellate court found that there were genuine issues of material fact in dispute, including whether the cellular base station was properly approved and whether it exceeded noise emission standards. It declared the base station a nuisance and ordered its abatement. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, finding that determining if the specific base station was a nuisance required resolving contested factual issues at trial.
Aldecoa Abatement Hinanay, Grace Anne Nicole R. 11687835 ISSUE
• WON the Court of Appeals erred in issuing a summary judgment and
declaring Smart’s cellular base station a nuisance that must be abated? RULE • Rivera v. Solidbank Corporation For a summary judgment to be proper, the
• ART. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission,
movant must establish two requisites: (a) there must be no genuine issue as to any material fact, except for the establishment, business, condition of property, amount of damages; and or anything else which: (b) the party presenting the motion for summary judgement must be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law (1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or • Rule 35 of the Rules of Court, GOVERNING SUMMARY JUDGMENT: (2) Annoys or offends the senses; or SEC. 2. Summary judgment for defending party (3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or SEC. 3. Motion and proceedings thereon morality; or (4) Obstructs or interferes with the free • AC Enterprises v. Frabelle Properties: Whether or not noise emanating from a passage of any public highway or street, or blower of the air conditoning units of the Feliza Building is nuisance is to be resolved only by the court in due course of proceedings. The plaintiff must prove any body of water; or that the noise is a nuisance and the consequences thereof. xxx Its presence is a nuisance in the popular sense in which that word is used, but in the absence of (5) Hinders or impairs the use of property. statute, noise becomes actionable only when it passes the limits of reasonable adjustment to the conditions of the locality and of the needs of the maker to the needs of the listener. What those limits are cannot be fixed by any definite measure of quantity or quality; they depend upon the circumstances of the particular case. ANALYSIS OF FACTS • Smart entered into a contract of lease with Florentino Sebastian where in the latter agreed to lease to Smart his vacant lot around 300 sqm in Isabela. • Smart, through its contractor, Allarilla Construction, immediately constructed and installed a cellular base station on the leased property. Inside the cellular base station is a communications tower, rising as high as150 feet, with antennas and transmitters; as well as a power house open on three sides containing a 25KVA diesel power generator. Around and close to the cellular base station are houses, hospitals, clinics, and establishments, including the properties of respondents Arsenio Aldecoa et al. • Aldecoa and the other respondents filed before the RTC a complaint against Smart for abatement of nuisance alleging that the tower is weak and susceptible to collapse like the Mobiline tower which fell during a typhoon, that this poses a great danger to life and property. The tower is also powered by a standard generator that is hazardous to the health of the residents and when in operation and because of the ultra high frequency radio wave emissions it radiates. They also claim that it was constructed without public hearing and permit of the barangay, municipality, the DENR (ECC) and NTC. • Smart, in their Answer, alleged that they applied for Building permit and was subsequently approved. They also applied for ECC. They also painstakingly sought approval from the residents therein. It is also unlikely to cause harm and that said tower was stable firm and sturdy. It prayed dismissal of the complaint and other prayers mentioned. ANALYSIS OF FACTS • On the date of pre-trial, Smart filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and averred that there was no need for a full blown trial since the cause of action and issues have already been settled in all the pleadings submitted. • Respondents filed their Opposition, maintaining that there were several genuine issues relating to the cause of action and material facts of their Complaint. They asserted that there was a need for a full blown trial to prove the allegations in their Complaint, as well as the defenses put up by petitioner Smart. • RTC: granted Smart’s motion for summary judgment. It held that the complaint is purely speculative and has no basis. There are cell site towers scattered all over, both of the Smart, Globe, and others, even in thickly populated areas like in Metro Manila and also in key locations nationwide, yet they have not been outlawed or declared nuisance as the respondents Aldecoa want the Court to heed. • CA: REVERSED. Declared the cellular base station of Smart a nuisance that endangered the health and safety of the residents of Barangay Vira, Isabela because: (1) the locational clearance granted to petitioner was a nullity due to the lack of approval by majority of the actual residents of the barangay and a barangay resolution endorsing the construction of the cellular base station; and (2) the sound emission of the generator at the cellular base station exceeded the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) standards. CONCLUSION • The RTC erred in granting petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment and ordering the dismissal of respondents’ Complaint. • A genuine issue is an issue of fact which requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished from an issue which is a sham, fictitious, contrived or a false claim. • Judging by the standards, summary judgment cannot be rendered in this case as there are clearly factual issues disputed or contested by the parties. • A reading of the RTC Order readily shows that the trial court did not take into account any of the foregoing considerations or tests before summarily dismissing the case. • The reasoning of the RTC that similar cellular base stations are scattered in heavily populated areas nationwide and are not declared nuisances is unacceptable. • As to whether or not this specific cellular base station of petitioner is a nuisance to respondents is largely dependent on the particular factual circumstances involved in the instant case, which is exactly why a trial for threshing out disputed or contested factual issues is indispensable. Evidently, it was the RTC which engaged in speculations and unsubstantiated conclusions. • Without presentation by the parties of evidence on the contested or disputed facts, there was no factual basis for declaring petitioner's cellular base station a nuisance and ordering petitioner to cease and desist from operating the same. • The decision of the CA is reversed and the case is remanded to the RTC.