4/17/26, 8:45 AM

​

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that sounds coming from a school’s normal activities are not considered a nuisance and do not make the school liable for damages.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division granted the petition of Couples for Christ School of the Morning Star and reversed an earlier ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) that had awarded damages to residents living near the school in Butuan City.

Residents of Saint Joseph Subdivision, led by Wideline I. Malonda, complained about noise from the school, including drums and bugles, teachers using microphones, and students shouting and cheering during games. They said these sounds disturbed their sleep and daily life.

The school, however, said it has been operating legally since 2012 and that the noise comes only from regular school activities. It also pointed out that tests by the city’s environment office showed the noise was within allowable limits for residential areas. The school added that it took steps to reduce noise, such as building higher fences, planting trees, using smaller speakers, and limiting activities to daytime hours on weekdays.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) earlier dismissed the complaint, saying the residents failed to prove actual harm. It also found that the school acted in good faith.

On appeal, the CA sided with the residents and ruled that the noise amounted to a nuisance.

The SC disagreed and overturned the CA’s ruling.

The High Court explained that not all noise is considered a nuisance. To be legally actionable, the noise must be serious enough to harm health or safety, or to disturb a reasonable person—not just someone who is unusually sensitive.

The SC said courts must consider several factors in such cases, including the reliability of noise tests, compliance with legal limits, efforts to reduce noise, and whether there was intent to cause harm.

In this case, the SC found that the residents failed to show that the noise was excessive or harmful. Their complaints pointed only to minor discomfort, not serious injury or health risks.

The Court also stressed that some level of noise is expected, especially in a densely populated country like the Philippines. Sounds from normal school activities, it said, are part of everyday life and should be reasonably tolerated.

The SC further ruled that the school could not be held liable for abuse of rights, noting there was no proof that it acted with malice or bad faith.

In a concurring opinion, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa clarified that nuisance and abuse of rights are different. Abuse of rights involves deliberately harming another, while nuisance arises when the use of property interferes with others’ enjoyment of their own property.