020 Velasco V Meralco (Alias Banilla)
020 Velasco V Meralco (Alias Banilla)
42 SCRA 556 Resort was made to a sound level meter. The audible sound from
December 20, 1971 different areas in Velaso’s property was measured in terms of decibels.
It was found that the sound exceeded the average intensity levels of
Doctrine: residences. Meralco was ordered either to transfer the facilities or
reduce the produced sound; and they were also ordered to pay Velasco
“ART.1250. In case an extraordinary inflation or deflation of the damages.
currency stipulated should supervene, the value of the currency at the
time of the establishment of the obligation shall be the basis of Both appellant Velasco and appellee Manila Electric Co. filed their
payment, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.” respective motions to reconsider.
Art. 1250 of new Civil Code not applicable to torts.—–From the employment of APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [VELASCO]
the words “extraordinary inflation or deflation of the currency stipulated” in Art.
1250 of the new Civil Code, it can be seen that the same envisages contractual It is first argued that the decision erred in not taking into account, in
obligations where a specific currency is selected by the parties as the medium of computing appellant’s loss of income, the appellant’s undeclared income
payment; hence it is inapplicable to obligations arising from tort and not from of P8,338.20, assessed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue for the year
contract. Besides, there is no showing in the case at bar that the factual 1954, in addition to his declared income for that year (P10,975), it being
assumption of the said article has come into existence. Lastly, the amount argued that appellant never claimed any other source of income besides
granted the appellant had already taken into account the changed economic his professional earnings.
circumstances.
Several circumstances of record disprove this claim.
FACTS:
(1) That the amount of P8,338.20 was kept apart from the ordinary
This case talks about the two (2) motions for reconsideration for the earnings of appellant for the year 1954 (P10,975), and not declared
August 6, 1971 decision for the original (OG) velasco v meralco case. with it, is in itself circumstantial evidence that it was not of comparable
The thrust of these motions is that the court incorrectly assessed character.
appellant’s damages and unreasonably reduced their amount.
(2) If it was part of his ordinary professional income, appellant was
Gist of the OG velasco v meralco case: guilty of fraud in not declaring it and he should not be allowed to derive
advantage from his own wrongdoing.
Velasco bought three (3) adjoining lots. He sold two (2) of these to
Meralco and maintained the last one as his residence. Meralco (3) The decision pointed out that by including the undeclared amount in
constructed on their lots a sub-station at a distance of 10-20 meters appellant’s disclosed professional earnings for 1954, to a grand total of
away from appellant’s house. The company also built a concrete wall at P19,313.20, the income for said year becomes abnormally high, as
the sides along the streets but put up only an interlink wire fence compared to appellant’s earnings for the three preceding years, 1951-
(previously a sawali wall) on the boundary with appellant. An unceasing 1953, that averaged not more than P7,000 per annum. Such
sound emanates from the substation, caused by transformers. Such, abnormality justifies the Court’s refusal to consider the undisclosed
appellent contends, constitute a nuisance which has worsened his P8,338.20 as part of appellant’s regular income for the purpose of
health condition and has lowered the value of his property. Several
computing the reduction in his earnings as a result of the complained Nor is the fact that appellant lost a chance to sell his house for P95.000
acts of appellee. to a certain Jose Valencia constitute a ground for an award of damages
in that amount.
(4) Finally, the true source of the undeclared amount lay in appellant’s
own knowledge, but he chose not to disclose it: neither did he call upon As remarked in the main decision, there is no adequate proof of loss,
the assessing revenue officer to reveal its character. since there is no evidence of the depreciation in the market value of the
house in question caused by the acts of defendant Meralco. The house,
Appellant Velasco further urges that the damages awarded him are after all, has remained with appellant, and he admits in his motion for
inadequate considering the present high cost of living, and calls reconsideration that properties have increased in value by 200% since
attention to Article 1250 of the present Civil Code, and to the then.
doctrines laid down in People vs. Pantoja, G.R. No. L-18793, 11 October
1968, 25 SCRA 468. MOTION DENIED.
The court does not deem the rules invoked to be applicable. Article APPELLEE’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER [MANILA ELECTRIC CO.]
1250 of the Civil Code is to the effect that:
Manila Electric Company argues that in case the noise emitted by its
“In case an extraordinary inflation or deflation of the currency stipulated
substation can not be brought down to the 50 decibel level imposed by the
should supervene, the value of the currency at the time of the
establishment of the obligation shall be the basis of payment, unless courts, the remedy of the appellant would be to compel the appellee
there is an agreement to the contrary.” Company to acquire and pay for the value of the house, under the so-called
doctrine of “inverse condemnation”, and cites in support our doctrines
It can be seen from the employment of the words “extra-ordinary
in Bengzon vs. Province of Pangasinan and Republic vs. Philippine Long
inflation or deflation of the currency stipulated” that the legal rule
envisages contractual obligations where a specific currency is Distance Telephone Co.
selected by the parties as the medium of payment; hence it is
inapplicable to obligations arising from tort and not from But as pointed out by appellant in his opposition, this issue was not raised,
contract, as in the case at bar, besides there being no showing that
nor was the inverse condemnation doctrine invoked in the trial court, so that
the factual assumption of the article has come into existence.
it would be improper to consider it on appeal, and worse still, on a motion for
As to the Pantoja ruling, the regard paid to the decreasing purchase of reconsideration of the decision on the merits.
the peso was considered a factor in estimating the indemnity due for
loss of life, which in itself is not susceptible of accurate estimation. It Furthermore, there is no showing that it is impossible to reduce the
should not be forgotten that the damages awarded to herein appellant
were by no means full compensatory damages, since the decision substation noise to the level decreed by this Court in the main decision. On
makes clear that appellant, by his failure to minimize his damages by the contrary, appellee’s own evidence is that the noise can be reduced by
means easily within his reach, was declared entitled only to a reduced erecting a wall barrier on the line separating the substation lot and the
award for the nuisance sued upon (Steel vs. Rail & River Coal Co., 43 property of appellant.
Ohio App. 228, 182 N.E. 552); and the amount granted him had already
taken into account the charged economic circumstances.
The version that appellee did not erect the wall because of the objections of It should not be forgotten that the damages awarded to herein appellant were
by no means full compensatory damages, since the decision makes clear that
appellant’s wife was denied by her, and there is no preponderance of
appellant, by his failure to minimize his damages by means easily within his
evidence in favor of appellee on this point. Moreover, since it was appellant reach, was declared entitled only to a reduced award for the nuisance sued
Dr. Velasco who complained, his wife’s objection would not suffice to upon; and the amount granted him had already taken into account the charged
constitute a waiver of his claim. economic circumstances.
MOTION DENIED.
ISSUES:
W/N Article 1250 of the New Civil code is applicable in this case
HELD: NO