When “Normal” Noise Wins: Supreme Court of the Philippines on HVAC Nuisance in Makati CBD

A 2020 decision in Frabelle Properties Corp. v. AC Enterprises, Inc. (G.R. No. 245438) from the Supreme Court of the Philippines has become a reference point for HVAC noise disputes in dense business districts. The full judgement is available on the court’s own website. The case involved long-running complaints about air-conditioning blowers on one high-rise sending noise and hot exhaust air towards a neighbouring mixed-use condominium in the Makati Central Business District. Despite years of pressure, measurements and enforcement attempts, the final judgement refused to treat the remaining noise as an actionable nuisance.

For stakeholders across Southeast Asia, this dispute is a strategic reminder that environmental noise cases turn not only on decibel values, but also on location, mitigation history and proof of impact on people with ordinary sensibilities. It also shows where specialist acoustics input and expert witness work can materially shift the outcome.

---

Background: blowers, complaints and competing measurements

The dispute arose between the owner of a mixed-use tower that managed residential and commercial tenants, and the owner of a nearby building whose façade carried 36 condenser blowers serving air-cooled chillers. The equipment was mounted on several floors, facing directly towards living spaces across a relatively narrow street. Residents reported continuous mechanical noise and warm exhaust air that allegedly made balconies unusable and reduced rental values.

Local environmental officers and the Environmental Management Bureau of the Philippines carried out several sound level measurements during the 1990s and around the turn of the century. Some of the earlier tests recorded levels above the commonly cited 65 dB guideline for that type of urban zone. The City Government of Makati eventually issued a cease-and-desist order and required mitigation.

In response, the plant owner implemented a progressive package of engineering controls: replacing some blowers, adding sound-attenuating elements and re-routing discharge so that hot air no longer blew directly at the neighbouring façade. Follow-up measurements commissioned by the city showed sound pressure levels in the low-60-dB range at critical receiver positions, which sat within the municipal benchmark for a commercial district.

Despite this, the complaining owner maintained that the HVAC plant remained intolerably loud and continued to pursue relief through the courts.

---

First-stage judgment: trial court finds a private nuisance

At first instance, the regional trial court accepted the narrative that blower noise was still excessive. The court relied heavily on historical exceedances, on anecdotal statements from inspectors and on witness testimony from a resident who described sleep disruption, discomfort and the need to keep balcony doors closed while operating her own air-conditioner constantly.

On that evidentiary base, the trial court concluded that the HVAC plant created a private nuisance and granted a permanent injunction alongside financial compensation for alleged lost income.

---

Appellate reversal: evidence and context re-evaluated

On appeal, the higher court was more sceptical. It noted that later sound level measurements, taken after mitigation works, showed compliance with the applicable noise limits for the area. Historic measurement reports, while not irrelevant, were given less weight because they did not reflect the situation at the time of judgement.

The appellate court also questioned whether the claimant had demonstrated disturbance to a person of ordinary sensibilities. The fact that only a single tenant testified, without broader survey data or medical evidence, made it difficult to prove that the residual noise exceeded what a reasonable resident should expect in a busy business neighbourhood.

The injunction and damages award were therefore set aside.

---

Final outcome: high court confirms “no actionable nuisance”

When the case reached the highest level, the court affirmed the appellate decision and clarified three key principles for environmental noise disputes in dense urban zones:

1. Locality matters. Noise is assessed in context. What may be intolerable in a quiet suburb can be considered normal in a central business district characterised by traffic, plant rooms and 24/7 building services.
2. Compliance data beats historic exceedances. If current operations demonstrably meet the relevant standard for the zone, older exceedance data will not usually justify severe remedies like shutdown orders or large damages.
3. Impact on ordinary people must be proven. Courts look for disturbance to a reasonably tolerant, typical resident – supported by multiple testimonies, logs, or expert and medical evidence – not just by the accounts of a particularly sensitive individual.

The decision does not say that HVAC noise can never be a nuisance; instead, it holds that the evidence in this specific dispute fell short of that threshold once mitigation had been implemented.

---

Implications for developers, operators and regulators in Southeast Asia

Developers and property owners

• Integrate acoustics early in design: treat external units, cooling towers, chillers and exhaust fans as critical noise sources that must be modelled, not afterthoughts.
• Design to meet noise limits with a safety margin, accounting for equipment ageing and potential future complaints.
• Create a formal log of complaints, site visits, measurements and mitigation works; long-term documentation can be decisive in litigation.

Facility and EHS managers

• Commission independent baseline measurements before and after major plant changes.
• Document instruments, settings, locations and weather conditions so that reports are court-ready.
• When complaints arise, combine technical findings with human impact data (sleep diaries, disturbance logs, tenant surveys) to show that the issue is being managed transparently.

Regulators and local authorities

• Use clear, zoning-based criteria and publish test procedures to reduce disputes about methodology.
• Prefer current, traceable measurements over informal observations when deciding whether enforcement is justified.
• Where internal capacity or equipment is limited, engage independent acoustic consultants to ensure defensible results.

---

How Geonoise Asia can support future cases

For noise disputes around building services, plant rooms and mixed-use developments, Geonoise Asia can add value at each stage of the lifecycle:

• Pre-project advisory: predicting HVAC and equipment noise using modelling, and recommending layouts or enclosures that minimise risk before construction.
• Compliance and optimisation: performing sound level surveys, interpreting local standards, and advising on practical mitigation that balances acoustics, energy and cost.
• Dispute resolution and expert witness work: preparing clear, traceable reports and visualisations that decision-makers can understand, and providing independent expert testimony when required.

By combining strong technical methods with a clear understanding of how courts analyse nuisance, Geonoise Asia helps owners, operators, regulators and communities achieve solutions that are both acoustically robust and legally defensible.