smart commnications vs. aldecoa

7/26/2019 Smart Commnications vs. Aldecoa

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/smart-commnications-vs-aldecoa 1/27

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 166330 September 11, 2013

SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Petitioner,vs.ARSENIO ALDECOA, OSE !. TORRE, CONRADO U. "UA, GREGORIO V.MANSANO, ERR# COR"U$ %&' ESTELITAACOSTA, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

LEONARDO(DE CASTRO, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of theRules of Court led by petitioner Smart Communications, nc., see!in" the

reversal of the #ecision$

dated %uly $&, '((4 and Resolution'

dated#ecember ), '((4 of the Court of *ppeals in C*+.R. C- o. /$00/. 1heappellate court 23 reversed and set aside the rder0 dated %anuary $&, '(($of the Re"ional 1rial Court 2R1C3, Branch '0, of Roas, sabela, in Civil Caseo. Br. '0+&0'+'((( dismissin" the complaint for abatement of nuisance andin6unction a"ainst petitioner, and 2'3 entered a new 6ud"ment declarin"petitioner7s cellular base station located in Baran"ay -ira, 8unicipality of Roas, Province of sabela, a nuisance and orderin" petitioner to cease anddesist from operatin" the said cellular base station.

1he instant Petition arose from the followin" facts9

Petitioner is a domestic corporation en"a"ed in the telecommunicationsbusiness. n 8arch ), '(((, petitioner entered into a contract of lease4 with:lorentino Sebastian in which the latter a"reed to lease to the former a pieceof vacant lot, measurin" around 0(( s;uare meters, located in Baran"ay-ira, Roas, sabela 2leased property3.Petitioner, throu"h its contractor,*llarilla Construction, immediately constructed and installed a cellular basestation on the leased property. nside the cellular base station is acommunications tower, risin" as hi"h as$5( feet, with antennas andtransmitters< as well as a power house open on three sides containin" a'5=-* diesel power "enerator. *round and close to the cellular base station

are houses, hospitals, clinics, and establishments, includin" the properties of respondents *rsenio *ldecoa, %ose B. 1orre, Conrado >. Pua, re"orio -.8ansano, %erry Corpu?, and @stelita *costa.

Respondents led before the R1C on 8ay '0, '((( a Complaint a"ainstpetitioner for abatement of nuisance and in6unction with prayer fortemporary restrainin" order and writ of preliminary in6unction, doc!eted asCivil Case o. Br. '0+&0'+'(((. Respondents alle"ed in their Complaint that9

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/sep2013/gr_166330_2013.html#fnt1










5. PetitionerAs communications tower is $5( feet in hei"ht e;uivalent toa $5+storey buildin". t is a tripod+type tower made of tubular steelsections and the last section, to which the hu"e and heavyantennatransponder array will be attached, about to be bolted on.ei"ht of the antenna mast is estimated at one 2$3 to three 203 tons,

more or less. *s desi"ned, the antennatransponder array are held onlyby steel bolts without support of "uy wires<

&. 1his S8*R1 tower is no diDerent from the 8obiline towerconstructed at Reina 8ercedes, sabela which collapsed durin" atyphoon that hit sabela in ctober $))E, an incident which is of public!nowled"e<

/. ith its structural desi"n, S8*R1As tower bein" constructed at -ira,Roas, sabela, is wea!, unstable, and inrm, susceptible to collapseli!e the 8obiline tower which fell durin" a typhoon as earlier alle"ed,

and its structural inte"rity bein" doubtful, and not earth;ua!e proof,this tower poses "reat dan"er to life and limb of persons as well astheir property, particularly, the respondents whose houses a but, or arenear or within the periphery of the communications tower<

E. 1his tower is powered by a standby "enerator that emitsnoious anddeleterious fumes, not to mention the constant noise it produces,hence, a ha?ard to the health, not only of the respondents, but theresidents in the area as well<

). hen in operation, the tower would also pose dan"er to the life and

health of respondents and residents of the baran"ay, especiallychildren, because of the ultra hi"h fre;uency 2>F:3 radio waveemissions it radiates. nly recently, Cable ews etwor! 2C3reported that cell phones, with minimal radiated power, are dan"erousto children, so more it is for this communications tower, whoseradiated power is thousands of times more than that of a cellphone<

$(. orse, and in violation of law, petitioner constructed the towerwithout the necessary public hearin", permit of the baran"ay, as wellas that of the municipality, the @nvironmental Compliance Certicateof the G#epartment of @nvironment and atural Resources

2#@R3H,construction permit, and other re;uirements of the ational 1elecommunications Commission 21C3, and in fact committed fraud inits application by for"in" an undated certication I that Baran"ay -iradoes not interpose any ob6ection to the proposed construction of a $5(ft. tower J site development, I as this certication was never issuedbyrespondent %ose 1orre, the Baran"ay Captain of -ira, Roas, sabela,and without the oKcial baran"ay seal, attached as *nne I*I and



Certication of the Baran"ay Kcer of the #ay that no public hearin"was held, attached as *nne IBI made inte"ral part hereof<

$$. ot bein" armed with the re;uisite permitsauthority as abovementioned, the construction of the tower is ille"al and should be

abated<

$'. Respondents and petitioner should not wait for the occurrence of death, in6uries and dama"e on account of this structure and 6udicialintervention is needed to ensure that such event will not happen.5

Respondents thus prayed for the R1C to9

$. ssue a temporary restrainin" order and after due hearin" toissue a writ of preliminary mandatory in6unction<

'. Render 6ud"ment9

+ 8a!in" the writ of preliminary mandatory in6unctionpermanent<

+ #eclarin" the construction of the S8*R1 tower as anuisance per se or per accidens<

+ rderin" the abatement of this nuisance by orderin" theremoval andor demolition of petitionerAs communicationtower<

+ Condemnin" petitioner to pay respondents moraldama"es in the sum of P$5(,(((.(( and eemplarydama"es in the sum of P0(,(((.((<

+ rderin" petitioner to pay attorneyAs fees in the amountof P'(,(((.(( plus trial honoraria ofP$,(((.(( for everyappearance in Court<

+ rderin" petitioner to refund to respondents liti"ationepenses in the amount of not less than P$(,(((.((<

0. *nd for such other reliefs as are 6ust and e;uitable in thepremises.&

n its *nswer8otion to ppose 1emporary Restrainin" rder withCompulsory Counterclaim, petitioner raised the followin" specialand aKrmative defenses9







$0. Petitioner throu"h its contractor, *llarillaConstruction2hereafter *llarilla3, applied for a Buildin" Permitthrou"h the oKce of 8unicipal en"ineer -ir"ilio *. Batucal on $0*pril '((( and subse;uently received its approval $/ *pril '(((.2a copy of the Kcial receipt and the Buildin" Permit is hereto

attached respectively as *nne I*I and IBI and made an inte"ralpart hereof3

$4. Petitioner, a"ain throu"h *llarilla applied for an@nvironmental Compliance Certicate 2@CC3 the approval of which, at present, remains pendin" with the #@R+G@nvironment8ana"ement Bureau 2@8B3H.

$5. Petitioner should not in anyway be liable for fraud or badfaith as it had painsta!in"ly secured the consent of ma6ority of the residents surroundin" the location of the 1ower in order to

see! their approval therewith. 2a copy of the list of residents whoconsented there to is attached herewith as *nne ICI and madean inte"ral part hereof3

$&. *mon" the residents who si"ned the consent list secured bypetitioner include the respondent %ose B. 1orre and a certainLinaMor *ldecoa, who is related to respondent *rsenio *ldecoa.

$/. Petitioner did not for"e the Baran"ay Certication butactually secured the consent of Baran"ay Captain %ose 1orrethrou"h the eDorts of San""unian" Bayan 2SB3 Board 8ember

:lorentino Sebastian.2a copy of the Baran"ay Certication isattached herewith as *nne I#I and made an inte"ral parthereof3

$E. Petitioner 1owerAs safety has been pre+cleared and is unli!elyto cause harm in eposin" the members of the public to levelseceedin" health limits considerin" that the antenna hei"ht of the 1ower is 45./0 meters or e;uivalent to $5( feet as stated in aRadio :re;uency @valuation report by @li?abeth F. 8endo?ahealth Physicist , of the #epartment of Fealth Radiation FealthService dated ) 8ay '(((. 2a copy is hereto attached as *nne

I@I and made an inte"ral part hereof3

$). 1he structural stability and soundness of the 1ower has beencertied by @n"r. 8elanio *. uillen %r. of the @n"ineerin"Consultin" rm 8icroMect as contained in their Stress *nalysisReport 2a copy is hereto attached as *nne I:I and made aninte"ral part hereof3



'(. petitionerAs impetus to push throu"h with the construction of the 1ower is spurred by the 1elecommunications *ct of $))5 orRepublic *ct /)'5 which states that the Iepansion of thetelecommunications networ! shall "ive priority to improvin" andetendin" basic services to areas not yet served.I *rticle , Sec.

4 par. B.2a copy of R* /)'5 is hereto attached as *nne II andmade an inte"ral part hereof3/

n the end, petitioner sou"ht the dismissal of respondentsA Complaint< thedenial of respondentsA prayer for the issuance of a temporary restrainin"order and writ of preliminary mandatory in6unction< the award of moral,nominal, and eemplary dama"es in the amounts which the court deem 6ustand reasonable< and the award of attorneyAs fees in the sum of P5((,(((.((and liti"ation epenses as may be proven at the trial.

Respondents then contested petitionerAs alle"ations and averred in their

Reply and *nswer to Counterclaim that9

+ PetitionerAs cell site relay antenna operates on the ultra hi"hfre;uency 2>F:3 band, or "i"abyte band, that is much hi"her than thatof 1- and radio broadcasts which operates only on the -ery Fi"h:re;uency 2-F:3 band, hence, petitionerAs e;uipment "eneratesdan"erously hi"h radiation and emission that is ha?ardous to thepeople eposed to it li!e respondents, whose houses are clusteredaround petitionerAs cell site antennacommunications tower<

+ *s admitted, petitioner has not secured the re;uired @nvironmental

Compliance Certicate 2@CC3. t has not even obtained the initialcompliance certicate 2CC3. n short,petitioner should have waited forthese documents before constructin" its tower, hence, it violated thelaw and such construction is ille"al and all the more sustains theassertions of respondents<

+ 1he alle"ed buildin" permit issued to petitioner is ille"al because of the lac! of an @CC and that petitionerAs application for a buildin"permit covered only a buildin" and not a cell site antenna tower.8oreover, the petitioner failed to obtain a ational 1elecommunications Commission 21C3 Clearance to construct the

communications tower. *s will be seen in the application and permit,the documents are dated *pril, '((( while the construction be"un in8arch, '(((<

+ 1he technical data that served as the basis of the Radio :re;uencyRadiation @valuation of petitionerAs mobile telephone base station wasprovided solely by the petitioner and in fact misled the #F RadiationFealth Service. t states an absurdly low transmitted power of twenty





2'(3 watts for a dual band mobile phone service such as petitionerSmartAs S8 )(($E(( #ual Band which is the standard service itoDers to the public<

+ 1he Stress *nalysis Report is self+servin" and tested a"ainst the

communications tower, the structural inte"rity is Mawed<

+ hile respondents may yield to the mandate of Republic *ct o./)'5,otherwise !nown as the 1elecommunications *ct of $))5,etendin"and improvin" or up"radin" of basic services to are as not yet served,this should not be ta!en as a license to "amble andor destroy thehealth and well+bein" of the people<

+ PetitionerAs alle"ed certication 2*nne I#I, should be *nne I4I3 isthe very same certication appended to respondentsA complaint whichthey have assailed as a for"ery and which respondent %ose 1orre, the

Baran"ay Captain of -ira, Roas, sabela, emphatically denies havin"si"ned andor issued the same. 8oreover, the certication "ivespetitioner away because respondent %ose 1orre has no technicaleducation usin" the telecommunications term IS8*R1 S8 J @1*CSpro6ect,I in said falsied certication<

+ PetitionerAs claim that it is not liable for fraud or bad faith, proudlystatin" that it has painsta!in"ly secured the consent of the ma6ority of the residents surroundin" the tower site, is belied by the alle"edConformity of Fost Community 2Residential3 N *nne ICI N should be*nne I0I N where only a handful of residents si"ned the document

prepared by petitioner and the contents of which were misrepresentedby a San""unian" Bayan 8ember in the person of ic! Sebastian whois an interested party bein" the owner of the land where the tower isconstructed. t was misrepresented to LinaMor *ldecoa, wife of respondent *rsenio *ldecoa that it was already anyway approved andsi"ned by Baran"ay Captain %ose 1orre when in truth his si"nature wasa"ain for"ed by the petitioner andor its employees or a"ents orperson wor!in" for said company. *lso, there are persons who are notresidents of -ira, Roas, sabela who si"ned the document such as8elanio C. apultos of Ri?al, Roas, sabela, Carlito Castillo of uesa,Roas, sabela, and another, ennie :eliciano from San *ntonio, Roas,

sabela. Certainly si 2&3 persons do not constitute the conformity of the ma6ority of the residents of -ira, Roas, sabela, and thoseimmediately aDected by the cellsite tower li!e respondents. 1hisdocument is li!ewise Mawed and cannot help petitionerAs cause.Besides, respondents and other residents, sity+two 2&'3 of them,communicated their protest a"ainst the erection of the cell towerspecifyin" their reasons therefor and epressin" their sentiments and



fears about petitionerAs communications tower, ero copy attached as*nne I*I and made inte"ral part hereof<

+ Respondents li!ewise specically deny the truth of the alle"ation inpara"raph $' of the answer, the truth bein" that the lot leased to

petitioner is owned by SB 8ember ic! Sebastian and that :lorentinoSebastian is dummyin" for the former in avoidance of possible anti+"raft char"es a"ainst his son concernin" this pro6ect. t is also furtherdenied for lac! of !nowled"e or information suKcient to form a belief as to the truth thereof. 8oreover, the lease contract, copy not anneedto petitionerAs answer, would automatically be terminated or ended inthe event of complaints andor protests from the residents.E

Civil Case o. Br. '0+&0'+'((( was set for pre+trial on September 'E, '(((.)

n September $$, '(((, petitioner led its Pre+1rial Brief in which it identied

the followin" issues9

4.$. hether respondents have a cause of action a"ainst the petitionerS8*R1 for this Fonorable Court to issue a Preliminary 8andatoryn6unction over the S8*R1 tower in Roas, sabela as it alle"edly posesa threat to the lives and safety of the residents within the area and if respondents are entitled to moral and eemplary dama"es as well asattorneyAs fees and epenses of liti"ation.

4.' hether the complaint should be dismissed in that the claim ordemand set forth in the Complaint is ctitious, ima"inary, sham and

without any real basis.

4.0. hat petitioner S8*R1 is entitled under its compulsorycounterclaim a"ainst respondents for moral and eemplary dama"es,attorneyAs fees, and other epenses of liti"ation.$(

n even date, petitioner led a 8otion for Summary %ud"ment that reads9

Petitioner S8*R1 Communications nc., thru counsel, respectfully manifeststhat9

$. 1here is no need for a full+blown trial as the causes of action andissues have already been identied in all the pleadin"s submitted tothis Fonorable court by both respondents and petitioner

'. 1here is clearly no "enuine issue as to any material fact or cause inthe action.









0. 1here is no etreme ur"ency to issue a Preliminary 8andatoryn6unction as stated in an aKdavit eecuted by S8*R1 SeniorSupervisor *ndres -. Romero in an aKdavit hereto attached as *nneI*I

4. Petitioner see!s immediate declaratory relief from respondentsAcontrived alle"ations as set forth in their complaint<

herefore, it is most respectfully prayed of this Fonorable Court thatsummary 6ud"ment be rendered pursuant to Rule 05 of the Revised Rules of Court.$$

Respondents led their Pre+1rial Brief on September '$, '(((, proposin" tolimit the issues,

vi?9

+ hether petitionerAs communications tower is a nuisance per seperaccidens and to"ether with its standby "enerator maybe abated forposin" dan"er to the property and life and limb of the residents of -ira,Roas, sabela more particularly the respondents and those whosehouses are clustered around or in the periphery of the cell site.

+ #ama"es, attorneyAs fees, liti"ation epenses and other claims.$'

Respondents li!ewise led on September '$, '((( their pposition topetitionerAs 8otion for Summary %ud"ment, maintainin" that there were

several "enuine issues relatin" to the cause of action and material facts of their Complaint. 1hey asserted that there was a need for a full blown trial toprove the alle"ations in their Complaint, as well as the defenses put up bypetitioner.$0

n its rder$4 dated September 'E, '(((, the R1C indenitely postponed thepre+trial until it has resolved petitionerAs 8otion for Summary %ud"ment. nthe same rder, the R1C directed the counsels of both parties to submit theirmemoranda, includin" supportin" aKdavits and other documents within 0(days.

Petitioner submitted its 8emorandum$5 on ctober '&, '(((< whilerespondents, followin" several motions for etension of time, led their8emorandum$& on ovember '', '(((. n their 8emorandum, respondentsadditionally alle"ed that9

1he cellsite base station is powered by a roarin" '5 =-* power "enerator.perated '4 hours since it started more than a month a"o, it has sentI6ac!hammers into the brainsI of all the inhabitants nearby. @veryone is















"oin" cra?y. * resident 6ust recently operated for breast cancer iscomplainin" that the noise emanatin" from the "enerator is fast trac!in" herappointment with death. She can no lon"er bear the unceasin" and irritatin"roar of the power "enerator.

:or this, the residents, led by the respondents, sou"ht a noise emission testof the power "enerator of petitioner S8*R1 Communications with the #@R. 1he test was conducted on ovember $4 and $5, '((( and the result showsthat the petitionerAs power "enerator failed the noise emission test, day andni"ht time. Result of this test was furnished the 8unicipal 8ayor of Roas,sabela 2See Communication of #@R Re"ional #irector Loren?o C. *"uilu? to8ayor Benedicto Calderon dated ovember $&, '((( and the nspection8onitorin" Report3.

ith these ndin"s, the power "enerator is also a nuisance. t must also beabated.$/

n %anuary $&, '(($, the R1C issued its rder "rantin" petitionerAs 8otion forSummary %ud"ment and dismissin" respondentsA Complaint. 1he R1C ruledas follows9

hat is of prime importance is the fact that contrary to the respondentsAspeculation, the radio fre;uency radiation as found out by the #epartment of Fealth is much lower compared to that of 1- and radio broadcast. 1herespondentsA counter to this claim is that the #epartment of Fealth wasmisled. 1his is a mere conclusion of the respondents.

1he respondents in opposin" the SmartAs construction of their cellsite isanchored on the supposition that the operation of said cellsite tower wouldpose a "reat ha?ard to the health of the alle"ed cluster of residents nearbyand the perceived dan"er that the said tower mi"ht also collapse in case of astron" typhoon that fell the 8obiline Cellsite tower of 8obiline 2sic3. 1hestructured built of the SmartAs Cellsite tower is similar to that of the 8obiline.

ow, as to the CourtAs assessment of the circumstances obtainin", we ndthe claim of the respondents to be hi"hly speculative, if not an isolated one.@lsewhere, we nd several cellsite towers scattered 2sic3 allover, both of theSmart, lobe, and others, nay even in thic!ly populated areas li!e in 8etro

8anila and also in !ey cities nationwide, yet they have not been outlawed ordeclared nuisance as the respondents now want this Court to heed. 1o thethin!in" of the Court, the respondents are harpin" ima"ined perils to theirhealth for reason only !nown to them perhaps especially were we to considerthat the Br"y. Captain of -ira earlier "ave its imprimatur to this pro6ect.oteworthy is the fact that the alle"ed cluster of residential houses that abutthe cellsite tower in ;uestion mi"ht be endan"ered thereby, the respondentsare but a few of those residents. f indeed, all those residents in -ira were





adversely aDected for the perceived ha?ards posed by the tower in ;uestion,they should also have been 6oined in as respondents in a class suit. 1hesinister motive is perhaps obvious.

*ll the fore"oin" reasons impel this Court to "rant the petitionerAs motion for

the dismissal of the complaint, the perceived dan"ers bein" hi"hlyspeculative without any bases in fact. *lle"ations in the complaint bein"more ima"inary than real, do not constitute factual bases to re;uire furtherproceedin" or a trial. *s to the claim that there is no certication orclearance from the #@R for the petitioner to lay in wait before theconstruction, suKce it to say that no action as yet has been ta!en by saidoKce to stop the on"oin" operation of said cellsite now in operation. 1herehas been no hue and cry from amon" the "reater ma6ority of the people of Roas, sabela, a"ainst it. *l contrario, it is most welcome to them as this isanother landmar! towards the pro"ress of this town.$E

1he dispositive portion of the R1C rder reads9

F@R@:R@, in view of the fore"oin" considerations, the Court herebyrenders 6ud"ment dismissin" the complaint as the alle"ations therein arepurely speculative and hence no basis in fact to warrant further proceedin"sof this case.

1he Court nds no compellin" "rounds to award dama"es.

ithout costs.$)

n another rder'(

dated :ebruary '/, '(($, the R1C denied respondentsA8otion for Reconsideration.

Respondents led an appeal with the Court of *ppeals, doc!eted as C*+.R.C- o. /$00/.

1he Court of *ppeals rendered its #ecision on %uly $&, '((4. 1he appellatecourt declared the cellular base station of petitioner a nuisance thatendan"ered the health and safety of the residents of Baran"ay -ira, Roas,sabela because9 2$3 the locational clearance "ranted to petitioner was anullity due to the lac! of approval by ma6ority of the actual residents of the

baran"ay and a baran"ay resolution endorsin" the construction of thecellular base station< and 2'3 the sound emission of the "enerator at thecellular base station eceeded the #epartment of @nvironment and aturalResources 2#@R3 standards. Conse;uently, the Court of *ppeals decreed9

F@R@:R@, the appealed decision is hereby R@-@RS@# and S@1 *S#@. *new one is entered declarin" the communications tower or base station of









petitioner Smart Communications, nc. located at Bri"ido Pascual Street in-ira, 8unicipality of Roas, Province of sabela, a nuisance. Petitioner isordered to cease and desist from operatin" the said tower or station.'$

Petitioner led its 8otion for Reconsideration ar"uin" that9 2$3 the basis for

the 6ud"ment of the appellate court that the cellular base station was anuisance had been etin"uished as the "enerator sub6ect of the Complaintwas already removed< and 2'3 there had been substantial compliance insecurin" all re;uired permits for the cellular base station.''

1he Court of *ppeals, in a Resolution dated #ecember ), '((4,refused toreconsider its earlier #ecision, reasonin" that9

Petitioner principally anchors its pleas for reconsideration on the Certicationissued by Roas, sabela 8unicipal @n"ineer -ir"ilio Batucal, declarin" thatupon actual inspection, no #enyo enerator Set has been found in the

companyAs cell site in Roas, sabela. e hold, however, that the certicationdated *u"ust $', '((4, ta!en on its own, does not prove SmartAs alle"ationthat it has abandoned usin" diesel+ powered "enerators since %anuary '(('.RespondentsA current photo"raphs of the cell site clearly shows 2sic3 thatSmart continues to use a mobile "enerator emittin" hi"h level of noise andfumes.

e have "one over GpetitionerAsH other ar"uments and observed that theyare merely repetitive of previous contentions which we have 6udiciously ruledupon.'0 2Citations omitted.3

Petitioner see!s recourse from the Court throu"h the instant Petition,assi"nin" the followin" errors on the part of the Court of *ppeals9

'$.( 1he Court of *ppeals erred when it encroached upon an eecutivefunction of determinin" the validity of a locational clearance when itdeclared, contrary to the administrative ndin"s of the Fousin" Land>se and Re"ulatory Board 2IFL>RBI3, that the locational clearance of Petitioner was void.

''.( 1he Court of *ppeals erred when it resolved an issue that was notsubmitted to it for resolution and in the process had usurped a purely

eecutive function.

'0.( 1he Court of *ppeals erred in declarin" PetitionerAs entire basestation a nuisance considerin" that it was only a small part of the basestation, a "enerator that initially powered the base station, that wasreportedly producin" unacceptable levels of noise.









'4.( 1he Court of *ppeals erred in not considerin" that thesupervenin" event of shut down and pull out of the "enerator in thebase station, the source of the perceived nuisance, made thecomplaint for abatement of nuisance academic.'4

1he Petition is partly meritorious. hile the Court a"rees that the Court of *ppeals should not have ta!en co"ni?ance of the issue of whether thelocational clearance for petitionerAs cellular base station is valid, the Courtwill still not reinstate the R1C rder dated %anuary $&, '(($ "rantin"petitionerAs 8otion for Summary %ud"ment and entirely dismissin" Civil Caseo. Br. '0+&0'+'(((. 1he issues of 2$3 whether petitionerAs cellular basestation is a nuisance, and 2'3 whether the "enerator at petitionerAs cellularbase station is, by itself, also a nuisance, ultimately involve disputed orcontested factual matters that call for the presentation of evidence at a full+blown trial.

n the ndin" of the Court of *ppeals that petitionerAs locationalclearance for its cellular base stationis a nullity

Based on the principle of ehaustion of administrative remedies and itscorollary doctrine of primary 6urisdiction, it was premature for the Court of *ppeals to ta!e co"ni?ance of and rule upon the issue of the validity ornullity of petitionerAs locational clearance for its cellular base station.

1he principle of ehaustion of administrative remedies and the doctrine of

primary 6urisdiction were eplained at len"th by the Court in Province of Oamboan"a del orte v. Court of *ppeals,'5 as follows9

1he Court in a lon" line of cases has held that before a party is allowed tosee! the intervention of the courts, it is a pre+condition that he avail himself of all administrative processes aDorded him. Fence, if a remedy within theadministrative machinery can be resorted to by "ivin" the administrativeoKcer every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his 6urisdiction, then such remedy must be ehausted rst before the court7spower of 6udicial review can be sou"ht. 1he premature resort to the court isfatal to one7s cause of action. *ccordin"ly, absent any ndin" of waiver or

estoppel, the case may be dismissed for lac! of cause of action.

1he doctrine of ehaustion of administrative remedies is not without itspractical and le"al reasons. ndeed, resort to administrative remedies entailslesser epenses and provides for speedier disposition of controversies. urcourts of 6ustice for reason of comity and convenience will shy away from adispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed and







complied with so as to "ive the administrative a"ency every opportunity tocorrect its error and to dispose of the case.

1he doctrine of primary 6urisdiction does not warrant a court to arro"ate untoitself the authority to resolve a controversy the 6urisdiction over which isinitially lod"ed with an administrative body of special competence.

e have held that while the administration "rapples with the comple andmultifarious problems caused by unbridled eploitation of our resources, the 6udiciary will stand clear. * lon" line of cases establishes the basic rule thatthe court will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sounddiscretion of "overnment a"encies entrusted with the re"ulation of activitiescomin" under the special technical !nowled"e and trainin" of such a"encies.

n fact, a party with an administrative remedy must not merely initiate theprescribed administrative procedure to obtain relief, but also pursue it to itsappropriate conclusion before see!in" 6udicial intervention. 1he underlyin"principle of the rule on ehaustion of administrative remedies rests on thepresumption that when the administrative body, or "rievance machinery, isaDorded a chance to pass upon the matter, it will decide the same correctly.2Citations omitted.3

1he Court a"ain discussed the said principle and doctrine in *ddition Fills8andaluyon" Civic J Social r"ani?ation, nc. v. 8e"aworld Properties JFoldin"s, nc., et al.,'& citin" Republic v. Lacap,'/ to wit9

e have consistently declared that the doctrine of ehaustion of administrative remedies is a cornerstone of our 6udicial system. 1he thrust of the rule is that courts must allow administrative a"encies to carry out theirfunctions and dischar"e their responsibilities within the speciali?ed areas of their respective competence. 1he rationale for this doctrine is obvious. tentails lesser epenses and provides for the speedier resolution of controversies. Comity and convenience also impel courts of 6ustice to shyaway from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has beencompleted.

n the case of Republic v. Lacap, we epounded on the doctrine of ehaustionof administrative remedies and the related doctrine of primary 6urisdiction inthis wise9

1he "eneral rule is that before a party may see! the intervention of thecourt, he should rst avail of all the means aDorded him by administrativeprocesses. 1he issues which administrative a"encies are authori?ed todecide should not be summarily ta!en from them and submitted to a court







without rst "ivin" such administrative a"ency the opportunity to dispose of the same after due deliberation.

Corollary to the doctrine of ehaustion of administrative remedies is thedoctrine of primary 6urisdiction< that is, courts cannot or will not determine a

controversy involvin" a ;uestion which is within the 6urisdiction of theadministrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that ;uestion by theadministrative tribunal, where the ;uestion demands the eercise of soundadministrative discretion re;uirin" the special !nowled"e, eperience andservices of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricatematters of fact. 2Citations omitted.3

1he Fousin" and Land >se Re"ulatory Board 2FL>RB3'E is the plannin",re"ulatory, and ;uasi+6udicial instrumentality of "overnment for land usedevelopment.') n the eercise of its mandate to ensure rational land use byre"ulatin" land development, it issued FL>RB Resolution o.R+&'&, series of

$))E, *pprovin" the Locational uidelines for Base Stations of Cellular8obile 1elephone Service, Pa"in" Service, 1run!in" Service, ireless LoopService and ther ireless Communication Services 2FL>RB uidelines3.Said FL>RB uidelines aim to protectI providers and users, as well as thepublic in "eneral while ensurin" eKcient and responsive communicationservices.I

ndeed, the FL>RB uidelines re;uire the submission of several documentsfor the issuance of a locational clearance for a cellular base station,includin"9

-. Re;uirements and Procedures in Securin" Locational Clearance

*. 1he followin" documents shall be submitted in duplicate9

". ritten Consent9

".$ Subdivisions

". $.' n the absence of an established Fomeowners *ssociation,consentaKdavit of non+ob6ection from ma6ority of actual occupants andowners of properties within a radial distance e;uivalent to the hei"ht of theproposed base station measured from its base, includin" all those whoseproperties is ad6oinin" the proposed site of the base station.2Refer to :i"ure'3







h. Baran"ay Council Resolution endorsin" the base station.

Correlatively, the FL>RB provides administrative remedies for non+

compliance with its re;uirements.

n '(((, when factual precedents to the instant case be"an to ta!e place,FL>RB Resolution o. R+5E&, series of $))&, otherwise !nown as the $))&FL>RB Rules of Procedure, as amended, was in eDect. 1he ori"inal $))&FL>RB Rules of Procedure was precisely amended by FL>RB Resolution o.R+&55, series of $))), Iso as to aDord oppositors with the proper channeland epeditious means to ventilate their ob6ections and oppositions toapplications for permits, clearances and licenses, as well as to protect theri"hts of applicants a"ainst frivolous oppositions that may cause undue delayto their pro6ects. I>nder the $))& FL>RB Rules of Procedure, as amended, an

opposition to an application for a locational clearance for a cellular basestation or a complaint for the revocation of a locational clearance for acellular base station already issued, is within the ori"inal 6urisdiction of theFL>RB @ecutive Committee. Relevant provisions read9

R>L@

Commencement of *ction, Summons and *nswer

S@C1 '. pposition to *pplication for PermitLicense Clearance. N henan opposition is led to an application for a license, permit or clearance withthe Board or any of its Re"ional :ield Kce, the Re"ional Kcer shall ma!e apreliminary evaluation and determination whether the case is impressed withsi"nicant economic, social, environmental or national policy implications. f heshe determines that the case is so impressed with si"nicant economic,social, environmental or national policy implications, such as, but not limitedto9

$3 Pro6ects of national si"nicance, for purposes of this rule, a pro6ect isof national si"nicance if it is one or falls under any of those

enumerated in Rule , Section 0 of these Rules, as amended<

'3 1hose involvin" ?onin" variances and eceptions<

03 1hose involvin" si"nicant public interest or policy issues<

43 1hose endorsed by the ?onin" administrators of local "overnmentunits.



1he Re"ional Kcer shall cause the records of the case to be transmitted tothe @ecutive Committee which shall assume ori"inal 6urisdiction over thecase, otherwise, the Re"ional Kcer shall act on and resolve the pposition.

S@C1 0. * pro6ect is of national si"nicance if it involves any of the

followin"9

a3 Power "eneratin" plants 2e."., coal+red thermal plants3and relatedfacilities 2e."., transmission lines3<

b3 *irportseaports< dumpin" sitessanitary landlls< reclamationpro6ects<

c3 Lar"e+scale pi""ery and poultry pro6ects<

d3 8inin";uarryin" pro6ects<

e3 ational "overnment centers<

f3 olf courses<

"3 :ish ponds and a;ua culture pro6ects<

h3 Cell sites and telecommunication facilities<

i3 @conomic ?ones, re"ional industrial centers, re"ional a"ro+industrialcenters, provincial industrial centers<

63 *ll other industrial activities classied as hi"h+intensity uses 2$+0Pro6ects3.

S@C1 4. *ny party a""rieved, by reason of the elevation or non+elevationof any contested application by the Re"ional Kcer, may le a veriedpetition for review thereof within thirty 20(3 days from receipt of the notice of elevation or non+elevation of the contested application with the @ecutiveCommittee which shall resolve whether it shall assume 6urisdiction thereon.

1he contested application for clearance, permit or license shall be treated as

a complaint and all other provisions of these rules on complaints notinconsistent with the precedin" section shall, as far as practicable, be madeapplicable to oppositions ecept that the decision of the Board en banc onsuch contested applications shall be nal and eecutory as provided in Rule, Section ' of these Rules, as amended.



1he Rules pertainin" to contested applications for license, permit orclearance shall, by analo"y, apply to cases led primarily for the revocationthereof.

R>L@ -Proceedin"s Before the Board of Commissioners

S@C1 $5. 1he @ecutive Committee. N 1he @ecutive Committee shall becomposed of the four re"ular Commissioners and the @+KcioCommissioner from the #epartment of %ustice.

1he @ecutive Committee shall act for the Board on policy matters, measuresor proposals concernin" the mana"ement and substantive administrativeoperations of the Board sub6ect to ratication by the Board en banc, andshall assume ori"inal 6urisdiction over cases involvin" opposition to anapplication for license, permit or clearance for pro6ects or cases impressedwith si"nicant economic, social, environmental or national policyimplications or issues in accordance with Section ', Rule of these Rules, asamended. t shall also approve the proposed a"enda of the meetin"s of theBoard en banc. 2@mphases supplied.3

*fter the FL>RB @ecutive Committee had rendered its #ecision, thea""rieved party could still avail itself of a system of administrative appeal,also provided in the $))& FL>RB Rules of Procedure, as amended9

R>L@ Petition for Review

S@C1 $. Petition for Review. N *ny party a""rieved by the #ecision of theRe"ional Kcer, on any le"al "round and upon payment of the review feemay le with the Re"ional Kce a veried Petition for Review of suchdecision within thirty 20(3 calendar days from receipt thereof.

n cases decided by the @ecutive Committee pursuant to Rule , Section 'of these Rules, as amended, the veried Petition shall be led with the@ecutive Committee within thirty 20(3 calendar days from receipt of theCommitteeAs #ecision. Copy of such petition shall be furnished the otherparty and the Board of Commissioners. o motion for reconsideration ormere notice of petition for review of the decision shall be entertained.



ithin ten 2$(3 calendar days from receipt of the petition, the Re"ionalKcer, or the @ecutive Committee, as the case may be, shall elevate therecords to the Board of Commissioner to"ether with the summary of proceedin"s before the Re"ional Kce. 1he Petition for Review of a decisionrendered by the @ecutive Committee shall beta!en co"ni?ance of by the

Board en banc.

R>L@ -*ppeal from Board #ecisions

S@C1 $.

8otion for Reconsideration. N ithin the period for lin" an appeal from aBoard decision, order or rulin" of the Board of Commissioners, any a""rievedparty may le a motion for reconsideration with the Board only on thefollowin" "rounds9 2$3 serious errors of law which would result in "rave

in6ustice if not corrected< and 2'3 newly discovered evidence.

nly one 2$3 motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.

8otions for reconsideration shall be assi"ned to the division from which thedecision, order or rulin" ori"inated.

S@C1 '. *ppeal. N *ny party may upon notice to the Board and the otherparty appeal a decision rendered by the Board of Commissioners en banc orby one of its divisions to the Kce of the President within fteen 2$53calendar days from receipt thereof, in accordance with P.#. o. $044 and

*.. o. $E Series of $)E/.

R>L@ @ntry of %ud"ment

S@C1 '. Rules on :inality. N :or purposes of determinin" when a decisionor order has become nal and eecutory for purposes of entry in the Boo! of %ud"ment, the followin" shall be observed9

a. >nless otherwise provided in a decision or resolution rendered by theRe"ional Kcer, the @ecutive Committee, or the Board of Commissioners,as the case may be, the orders contained therein shall become nal asre"ards a party thirty 20(3 calendar days after the date of receipt thereof andno petition for review or appeal therefrom has been led within the saidperiod. 2@mphases supplied.3



1here is no showin" that respondents availed themselves of the afore+mentioned administrative remedies prior to institutin" Civil Case o. Br. '0+&0'+'((( before the R1C. hile there are accepted eceptions to theprinciple of ehaustion of administrative remedies and the doctrine of primary 6urisdiction,0( respondents never asserted nor ar"ued any of them.

1hus, there is no co"ent reason for the Court to apply the eceptions insteadof the "eneral rule to this case.

rdinarily, failure to comply with the principle of ehaustion of administrativeremedies and the doctrine of primary 6urisdiction will result in the dismissalof the case for lac! of cause of action. Fowever, the Court herein will not "oto the etent of entirely dismissin" Civil Case o. Br. '0+&0'+'(((. 1he Courtdoes not lose si"ht of the fact that respondentsA Complaint in Civil Case o.Br. '0+&0'+'((( is primarily for abatement of nuisance< and respondentsalle"ed the lac! of FL>RB re;uirements for the cellular base station, not tosee! nullication of petitionerAs locational clearance, but to support their

chief ar"ument that said cellular base station is a nuisance which needs tobe abated. 1he issue of whether or not the locational clearance for saidcellular base station is valid is actually separate and distinct from the issueof whether or not the cellular base station is a nuisance< one is notnecessarily determinative of the other. hile the rst is within the primary 6urisdiction of the FL>RB and, therefore, premature for the courts to ruleupon in the present case, the latter is within the 6urisdiction of the courts todetermine but only after trial proper.

n the declaration of the Court of *ppeals that petitionerAs cellular

base station is a nuisance that mustbe abated

*rticle &)4 of the Civil Code denes nuisance as9

*R1. &)4. * nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, conditionof property, or anythin" else which9

2$3 n6ures or endan"ers the health or safety of others< or

2'3 *nnoys or oDends the senses< or

203 Shoc!s, dees or disre"ards decency or morality< or

243 bstructs or interferes with the free passa"e of any public hi"hwayor street, or any body of water< or

253 Finders or impairs the use of property.





1he term InuisanceI is so comprehensive that it has been applied to almostall ways which have interfered with the ri"hts of the citi?ens, either inperson, property, the en6oyment of his property, or his comfort.0$

1he Court, in *C @nterprises, nc. v. :rabelle Properties Corporation,0' settled

that a simple suit for abatement of nuisance, bein" incapable of pecuniaryestimation, is within the eclusive 6urisdiction of the R1C. *lthou"hrespondents also prayed for 6ud"ment for moral and eemplary dama"es,attorneyAs fees, and liti"ation epenses, such claims are merely incidental toor as a conse;uence of, their principal relief.

onetheless, while 6urisdiction over respondentsA Complaint for abatement of nuisance lies with the courts, the respective 6ud"ments of the R1C and theCourt of *ppeals cannot be upheld.

*t the outset, the R1C erred in "rantin" petitionerAs 8otion for Summary

%ud"ment and orderin" the dismissal of respondentsA Complaint in Civil Caseo. Br. '0+&0'+'(((.

Summary 6ud"ments are "overned by Rule 05 of the Rules of Court, pertinentprovisions of which state9

S@C. '. Summary 6ud"ment for defendin" party. N * party a"ainst whom aclaim, counterclaim, or cross+claim is asserted or a declaratory relief issou"ht may, at any time, move with supportin" aKdavits, depositions oradmissions for a summary 6ud"ment in his favor as to all or any part thereof.

S@C. 0. 8otion and proceedin"s thereon. N 1he motion shall be served atleast ten 2$(3 days before the time specied for the hearin". 1he adverseparty may serve opposin" aKdavits, depositions, or admissions at leastthree 203 days before the hearin". *fter the hearin", the 6ud"ment sou"htshall be rendered forthwith if the pleadin"s, supportin" aKdavits,depositions, and admissions on le, show that, ecept as to the amount of dama"es, there is no "enuine issue as to any material fact and that themovin" party is entitled to a 6ud"ment as a matter of law. [email protected]

n Rivera v. Solidban! Corporation,00 the Court discussed etensively when a

summary 6ud"ment is proper9

:or a summary 6ud"ment to be proper, the movant must establish twore;uisites9 2a3 there must be no "enuine issue as to any material fact, eceptfor the amount of dama"es< and 2b3 the party presentin" the motion forsummary 6ud"ment must be entitled to a 6ud"ment as a matter of law.here, on the basis of the pleadin"s of a movin" party, includin" documentsappended thereto, no "enuine issue as to a material fact eists, the burden









to produce a "enuine issue shifts to the opposin" party. f the opposin" partyfails, the movin" party is entitled to a summary 6ud"ment.

* "enuine issue is an issue of fact which re;uires the presentation of evidence as distin"uished from an issue which is a sham, ctitious, contrived

or a false claim.

1he trial court can determine a "enuine issue on the basis of the pleadin"s,admissions, documents, aKdavits or counter aKdavits submitted by theparties. hen the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, thenthere is no real or "enuine issue or ;uestion as to any fact and summary 6ud"ment called for. n the other hand, where the facts pleaded by theparties are disputed or contested, proceedin"s for a summary 6ud"mentcannot ta!e the place of a trial. 1he evidence on record must be viewed inli"ht most favorable to the party opposin" the motion who must be "iven thebenet of all favorable inferences as can reasonably be drawn from the

evidence.

Courts must be critical of the papers presented by the movin" party and notof the papersdocuments in opposition thereto. Conclusory assertions areinsuKcient to raise an issue of material fact. * party cannot create a "enuinedispute of material fact throu"h mere speculations or compilation of diDerences. Fe may not create an issue of fact throu"h bald assertions,unsupported contentions and conclusory statements. Fe must do more thanrely upon alle"ations but must come forward with specic facts in support of a claim. here the factual contet ma!es his claim implausible, he mustcome forward with more persuasive evidence demonstratin" a "enuine issue

for trial. 2@mphases supplied< citations omitted.3

%ud"in" by the afore;uoted standards, summary 6ud"ment cannot berendered in this case as there are clearly factual issues disputed orcontested by the parties. *s respondents correctly ar"ued in their ppositionto petitionerAs 8otion for Summary %ud"ment9

$. Contrary to the claim of petitioner, there are several "enuine issues as tothe cause of action and material facts related to the complaint. :or one thereis an issue on the structural inte"rity of the tower, the ultra hi"h fre;uency2>F:3 radio wave emission radiated by the communications tower aDectin"

the life, health and well bein" of theGrespondentsH and the baran"ayresidents, especially their children. *lso, the noiousdeleterious fumes andthe noise produceGdH by the standby "enerator and the dan"er posted by thetower if it collapses in re"ard to life and limb as well as the property of theGrespondentsH particularly those whose houses abut, or are nearwithin theperiphery of the communications tower. 04





Li!ewise constitutin" real or "enuine issues for trial, which arose fromsubse;uent events, are the followin"9 whether the "enerator sub6ect of respondentsA Complaint had been removed< whether said "enerator hadbeen replaced by another that produces as much or even more noise andfumes< and whether the "enerator is a nuisance that can be abated

separately from the rest of the cellular base station.

:urthermore, the Court demonstrated in *C @nterprises, nc. the etensivefactual considerations of a court before it can arrive at a 6ud"ment in anaction for abatement of nuisance9

hether or not noise emanatin" from a blower of the air conditionin" units of the :eli?a Buildin" is nuisance is to be resolved only by the court in duecourse of proceedin"s.1âwphi1 1he plaintiD must prove that the noise is anuisance and the conse;uences thereof. oise is not a nuisance per se. tmay be of such a character as to constitute a nuisance, even thou"h it arises

from the operation of a lawful business, only if it aDects in6uriously the healthor comfort of ordinary people in the vicinity to an unreasonable etent. n6uryto a particular person in a peculiar position or of especially sensitivecharacteristics will not render the noise an actionable nuisance. n theconditions of present livin", noise seems inseparable from the conduct of many necessary occupations. ts presence is a nuisance in the popular sensein which that word is used, but in the absence of statute, noise becomesactionable only when it passes the limits of reasonable ad6ustment to theconditions of the locality and of the needs of the ma!er to the needs of thelistener. hat those limits are cannot be ed by any denite measure of ;uantity or ;uality< they depend upon the circumstances of the particular

case. 1hey may be aDected, but are not controlled, by ?onin" ordinances. 1he delimitation of desi"nated areas to use for manufacturin", industry or"eneral business is not a license to emit every noise protably attendin" theconduct of any one of them.

1he test is whether ri"hts of property, of health or of comfort are soin6uriously aDected by the noise in ;uestion that the suDerer is sub6ected toa loss which "oes beyond the reasonable limit imposed upon him by thecondition of livin", or of holdin" property, in a particular locality in factdevoted to uses which involve the emission of noise althou"h ordinary careis ta!en to conne it within reasonable bounds< or in the vicinity of property

of another owner who, thou"h creatin" a noise, is actin" with reasonablere"ard for the ri"hts of those aDected by it.

Commercial and industrial activities which are lawful in themselves maybecome nuisances if they are so oDensive to the senses that they render theen6oyment of life and property uncomfortable. 1he fact that the cause of thecomplaint must be substantial has often led to epressions in the opinionsthat to be a nuisance the noise must be deafenin" or loud or ecessive and



unreasonable. 1he determinin" factor when noise alone is the cause of complaint is not its intensity or volume. t is that the noise is of suchcharacter as to produce actual physical discomfort and annoyance to aperson of ordinary sensibilities, renderin" ad6acent property less comfortableand valuable. f the noise does that it can well be said to be substantial and

unreasonable in de"ree, and reasonableness is a ;uestion of fact dependentupon all the circumstances and conditions. 1here can be no ed standard asto what !ind of noise constitutes a nuisance.

1he courts have made it clear that in every case the ;uestion is one of reasonableness. hat is a reasonable use of oneAs property and whether aparticular use is an unreasonable invasion of anotherAs use and en6oyment of his property so as to constitute a nuisance cannot be determined by eactrules, but must necessarily depend upon the circumstances of each case,such as locality and the character of the surroundin"s, the nature, utility andsocial value of the use, the etent and nature of the harm involved, the

nature, utility and social value of the use or en6oyment invaded, and the li!e.

Persons who live or wor! in thic!ly populated business districts mustnecessarily endure the usual annoyances and of those trades and businesseswhich are properly located and carried on in the nei"hborhood where theylive or wor!. But these annoyances and discomforts must not be more thanthose ordinarily to be epected in the community or district, and which areincident to the lawful conduct of such trades and businesses. f they eceedwhat mi"ht be reasonably epected and cause unnecessary harm, then thecourt will "rant relief.

* ndin" by the L> that the noise ;uality standards under the law have notbeen complied with is not a prere;uisite nor constitutes indispensableevidence to prove that the defendant is or is not liable for a nuisance and fordama"es. Such ndin" is merely corroborative to the testimonial andorother evidence to be presented by the parties. 1he eercise of due care bythe owner of a business in its operation does not constitute a defense where,notwithstandin" the same, the business as conducted, seriously aDects theri"hts of those in its vicinity.052Citations omitted.3

* readin" of the R1C rder dated %anuary $&, '(($ readily shows that thetrial court did not ta!e into account any of the fore"oin" considerations or

tests before summarily dismissin" Civil Case o. Br. '0+&0'+'(((. 1hereasonin" of the R1C that similar cellular base stations are scattered inheavily populated areas nationwide and are not declared nuisances isunacceptable. *s to whether or not this specic cellular base station of petitioner is a nuisance to respondents is lar"ely dependent on the particularfactual circumstances involved in the instant case, which is eactly why atrial for threshin" out disputed or contested factual issues is indispensable.





@vidently, it was the R1C which en"a"ed in speculations and unsubstantiatedconclusions.

:or the same reasons cited above, without presentation by the parties of evidence on the contested or disputed facts, there was no factual basis for

declarin" petitioner7s cellular base station a nuisance and orderin" petitionerto cease and desist from operatin" the same.

iven the e;ually important interests of the parties in this case, i.e., on onehand, respondents7 health, safety, and property, and on the other,petitioner7s business interest and the public7s need for accessible and bettercellular mobile telephone services, the wise and prudent course to ta!e is toremand the case to the R1C for trial and "ive the parties the opportunity toprove their respective factual claims.

F@R@:R@, premises considered, the instant Petition is P*R1*LLQ

R*1@#. 1he #ecision dated %uly $&, '((4 and Resolution dated #ecember), '((4 of the Court of *ppeals in C*+.R. C- o. /$00/ are R@-@RS@# andS@1 *S#@. Let the records of the case be R@8*#@# to the Re"ional 1rialCourt, Branch '0, of Roas, sabela, which is #R@C1@# to reinstate CivilCase o. Br. '0+&0'+'((( to its doc!et and proceed with the trial andad6udication thereof with appropriate dispatch in accordance with this#ecision.

S R#@R@#.

TERESITA . LEONARDO(DE CASTRO

*ssociate %ustice

@ CC>R9

MARIA LOURDES ". A. SERENOChief %usticeChairperson

LUCAS ". !ERSAMIN*ssociate %ustice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, R.*ssociate %ustice

!IENVENIDO L. RE#ES*ssociate %ustice

C @ R 1 : C * 1

Pursuant to Section $0, *rticle - of the Constitution, certify that theconclusions in the above #ecision had been reached in consultation beforethe case was assi"ned to the writer of the opinion of the Court7s #ivision.



MARIA LOURDES ". A. SERENOChief %ustice

Foot&ote)

$ Rollo, pp. 44+5/< penned by *ssociate %ustice Ruben 1. Reyes with*ssociate %ustices Perlita %. 1ria 1irona and %ose C. Reyes, %r., concurrin".

' d. at 5E+5).

0 d. at $'&+$'E< penned by %ud"e 1eodulo @. 8irasol.

4 Records, pp. $'/+$'E.

5 d. at E+).

& d. at $(.

/ d. at '(+'$.

E d. at 45+4&.

) d. at 5/.

$(

d. at &0.

$$ d. at &/.

$' d. at /).

$0 d. at E'.

$4 d. at E4.

$5 d. at EE+)'.

$& d. at $($+$$(.

$/ d. at $(/.

$E Rollo, pp. $'/+$'E.

$) d. at $'E.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/sep2013/gr_166330_2013.html#rnt1








































'( d. at $0&.

'$ d. at 5&.

'' C* rollo, pp. )0+)&.

'0 Rollo, p. 5).

'4 d. at $5+$&.

'5 0)& Phil. /(), /$/+/'( 2'(((3.

'& .R. o. $/5(0), *pril $E, '($', &/( SCR* E0, E)+)(.

'/ 54& Phil. E/ 2'((/3.

'E

@ecutive rder o. &4E, series of $)E$, established the FumanSettlements Re"ulatory Commission 2FSRC3. Subse;uently, @ecutiverder o. )(, series of $)E&, renamed the FSRC as the FL>RB.

') http9hlurb."ov.phlaws+issuances+'tab"arbtab$

0( n Republic v. Lacap 2supra note '/ at )/+)E3, the Court enumeratedthe eceptions9 2a3 where there is estoppel on the part of the partyinvo!in" the doctrine< 2b3 where the challen"ed administrative act ispatently ille"al, amountin" to lac! of 6urisdiction< 2c3 where there isunreasonable delay or oKcial inaction that will irretrievably pre6udice

the complainant< 2d3 where the amount involved is relatively small soas to ma!e the rule impractical and oppressive< 2e3 where the ;uestioninvolved is purely le"al and will ultimately have to be decided by thecourts of 6ustice< 2f3 where 6udicial intervention is ur"ent< 2"3 when itsapplication may cause "reat and irreparable dama"e< 2h3 where thecontroverted acts violate due process< 2i3 when the issue of non+ehaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot< 263when there is no other plain, speedy and ade;uate remedy< 2!3 whenstron" public interest is involved< and, 2l3 in ;uo warranto proceedin"s.

0$ *C @nterprises, nc. v. :rabelle Properties Corporation, 50/ Phil. $$4,

$40 2'((&3.

0' d. at $4'+$40.

00 5'$ Phil. &'E, &4E+&4) 2'((&3.

04 Records, p. E'.

































05 *C @nterprises, nc. v. :rabelle Properties Corporation, supra note 0$at $4)+$5$.



smart commnications vs. aldecoa

Documents