Dear PAO,

Without warning, Bon, a barangay tanod, destroyed my pool table with a sledgehammer. He said that it was a nuisance and must be abated immediately because the neighbors were complaining about the noise made by the numerous pool players. Please enlighten me about the concept of “nuisance” and the appropriateness of Bon’s actions.

Adrian

Dear Adrian,

In the case of Cruz v. Pandacan Hiker’s Club Inc. (GR 188213, Jan. 11, 2016), the Supreme Court, through Justice Diosdado Peralta, pronounced:

“Prevailing jurisprudence holds that unless a nuisance is a nuisance per se, it may not be summarily abated.

“There is a nuisance when there is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which: (1) injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or (2) annoys or offends the senses; or (3) shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or (4) obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water; or (5) hinders or impairs the use of property. But other than the statutory definition, jurisprudence recognizes that the term ‘nuisance’ is so comprehensive that it has been applied to almost all ways which have interfered with the rights of the citizens, either in person, property, the enjoyment of his property, or his comfort.

“xxx

“A nuisance may also be classified as to whether it is susceptible to a legal summary abatement, in which case, it may either be: (a) a nuisance per se, when it affects the immediate safety of persons and property, which may be summarily abated under the undefined law of necessity; or, (b) a nuisance per accidens, which ‘depends upon certain conditions and circumstances, and its existence being a question of fact, it cannot be abated without due hearing thereon in a tribunal authorized to decide whether such a thing does in law constitute a nuisance;’ it may only be so proven in a hearing conducted for that purpose and may not be summarily abated without judicial intervention.”

While a lot of pool players frequent the pool table, the noise they make is a mere nuisance per accidens because it does not affect the immediate safety of persons and property. Therefore, it should not have been summarily abated or immediately destroyed.

Even if it is assumed that the pool table was a nuisance per se, but it did not pose any immediate harm or threat that required prompt action, the abrupt destruction or abatement performed is uncalled for and failed to observe the proper procedure for such an action which puts the said act into legal question, viz.:

“Under Article 700 of the Civil Code, the abatement, including one without judicial proceedings, of a public nuisance is the responsibility of the district health officer. Under Article 702 of the Code, the district health officer is also the official who shall determine whether or not abatement, without judicial proceedings, is the best remedy against & public nuisance.”

In your narration of facts, it was a barangay tanod who destroyed your pool table. He is not, as can be concluded from the aforementioned provisions of law, authorized to ascertain the propriety of a summary abatement and execute the same. He may be held legally liable for his improper actions.

We hope that we are able to answer your queries. This advice is 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 [email protected]