Short answer. Article 699 of the Civil Code gives three remedies against a public nuisance: a prosecution under the Penal Code or a local ordinance, a civil action, or abatement without judicial proceedings. These remedies exist precisely because a public nuisance affects the community generally, not just one private complainant.
What the law says
The remedies against a public nuisance are: (1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance: or (2) A civil action; or (3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.
Civil Code, Article 699 — Remedies Against Public Nuisance. Read the full provision →
Prosecution under the Penal Code or a local ordinance
Article 699's first listed remedy is a prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance. A public nuisance can be treated as a criminal or ordinance matter, meaning the conduct itself is subject to prosecution as an offense, separate from any private lawsuit. This route puts enforcement in the hands of the state or local government rather than requiring the affected residents to carry the case themselves.
A civil action
The second remedy Article 699 names is simply a civil action. This is the route through which a private party, or the appropriate government entity, can go to court to seek relief against the nuisance directly — whether that means stopping it, obtaining damages, or some other civil remedy the action seeks. The article does not spell out here what specific relief such an action can obtain, only that a civil action is one of the available paths.
Abatement without judicial proceedings
The third remedy is abatement, without judicial proceedings — addressing the nuisance directly, without first going through a court. This option exists as a distinct path from prosecution or a civil suit. Article 699 names it as available but does not itself set out the conditions or limits under which abatement without judicial proceedings may properly be carried out, so those specifics are not answered by this article alone.
Choosing among the three
Article 699 presents these as separate, available remedies rather than ranking them or requiring one to be tried before another. Because a public nuisance affects the general public rather than one identifiable victim, the article's framing — criminal, civil, or direct abatement — reflects that the response can come through public enforcement, private legal action, or direct action, depending on what fits the situation.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), et al. vs. City Advertising Ventures Corporation, G.R. No. 182944, November 9, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Linda Rana vs. Teresita Lee Wong, et al./Sps Rosario and Wilson Uy, et al. vs. Sps. Reynaldo and Linda Rana, G.R. No. 192861 / G.R. No. 192862, June 30, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →