4/14/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Petitioners further claimed that since the Baptist Church was already successfully
organized and established at San Carlos City, respondent's mission was already
finished. Thus, BSAABC ordered him to be transferred to other areas of mission work;
but in defiance to the order, respondent refused without justifiable reason. After
investigation, it was discovered that respondent's refusal to leave San Carlos City was
because he had built his personal house on the land owned by BSAABC without the
latter's consent. On November 20, 2011, after earnest efforts of negotiating with
respondent and giving him adequate opportunity to ventilate his side, the members of
the BSAABC unanimously voted to remove him as missionary and cancel his ABA
recommendation. He was informed of the decision in the November 24, 2011 Letter. In
the same letter, BSAABC demanded respondent to vacate the property as soon as
possible, and offered to buy the house erected thereon at the estimated cost of building
materials.[10]
This prompted respondent to file a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal on September 10,
2012.[11]
The LA Ruling
The LA found respondent's dismissal illegal. Petitioners were ordered to pay backwages,
separation pay, 13th month pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
[12]
The LA held that it has jurisdiction over the matter considering that respondent was
appointed as instructor of MBIS. His being a member of the Abiko Baptist Church of
Japan was only incidental to his main duties and responsibilities as instructor.[13]
Respondent's Appointment Paper was considered sufficient evidence to establish the
employer-employee relationship. It further ruled that considering respondent had
attained regular status, he cannot be dismissed unless for a cause. The November 24,
2011 Letter was, in effect, a way of terminating the employment of respondent, hence,
illegal. [14]
The NLRC Ruling
The NLRC reversed the LA's ruling and dismissed the complaint on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. It held simply that the expulsion of respondent from their church was an
ecclesiastical affair, and as such, has no remedy in civil courts.[15]
The CA Ruling
On appeal to the CA, the NLRC's Decision and Resolution were reversed and set aside.
Accordingly, the LA's ruling was reinstated.
The CA ruled that both the LA and NLRC had jurisdiction over the matter. It found that
the November 24, 2011 Letter served as: (1) notice for the termination of respondent's
employment, and (2) exclusion of his membership in the church. The tenor of the letter
itself implicitly demonstrated that these incidents were distinct from each other.
Respondent's status as a missionary on one hand, and his membership in the church on
the other, were separate matters. The former was a purely secular matter, and the
latter was an ecclesiastical affair; and one does not necessarily include the other.[16]
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66079
2/24