Short answer. Under Article 699 of the Civil Code, three remedies are available against a public nuisance: criminal prosecution under the Penal Code or a local ordinance, a civil action, or extrajudicial abatement without court proceedings. These options may be pursued independently or together, depending on the circumstances.
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 →
First remedy: criminal prosecution
The first option Article 699 provides is a prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance. Where the conduct that constitutes a public nuisance also satisfies the elements of a criminal offense — for example, it endangers public health, blocks a road, or violates a local ordinance prohibiting specific activities — the responsible party may be criminally charged. Criminal prosecution differs from a civil action in both procedure and consequence: it is the State that prosecutes, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, and the outcome may be imprisonment rather than just abatement or compensation.
Second remedy: civil action
A civil action is the second option. Members of the public who suffer special injury — harm that is distinguishable from the general harm the public suffers — may bring a civil suit for damages or for injunctive relief to stop the nuisance. A civil action places the aggrieved party in control of the litigation rather than depending on public authorities to act. It allows claims for both the discontinuation of the nuisance and compensation for the damage it has already caused. The standard of proof is a preponderance of evidence, which is lower than the criminal standard.
Third remedy: extrajudicial abatement
The third remedy is abatement without judicial proceedings — the most immediately available option. The Civil Code permits certain parties to remove or neutralize a public nuisance without first going to court. However, this power is not unlimited: the abating party risks civil liability for any damages caused if the abatement later proves unjustified or is carried out more forcefully than necessary. Extrajudicial abatement is addressed in more detail in other provisions of the Civil Code, which set out who may abate, what care must be taken, and when liability attaches.
Choosing among the three
Article 699 does not require a party to choose only one remedy. A public nuisance that also constitutes a criminal offense can be prosecuted criminally while a civil suit proceeds in parallel. The abatement option operates outside the court system entirely and can be the fastest response to a nuisance causing ongoing harm. In practice, the appropriate choice depends on the urgency of the situation, the evidence available, whether a specific person has suffered damages beyond the general public harm, and whether local government authorities are willing and able to act through regulatory channels.
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 →