4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In this case, there were three (3) acts which were decided upon by the Abiko Baptist Church against respondent in its November 24, 2011 Letter, to wit: (1) removal as a missionary of Abiko Baptist Church; (2) cancellation of the ABA recommendation as a national missionary; and (3) exclusion of membership from Abiko Baptist Church in Japan. To the mind of the Court, the exclusion of membership from Abiko Baptist Church in Japan and the cancellation of ABA recommendation as a national missionary are ecclesiastical matters which this jurisdiction will not touch upon. These matters are exclusively determined by the church in accordance with the standards they have set. The Court cannot meddle in these affairs since the church has the discretion to choose members who live up to their religious standards. The ABA recommendation as a national missionary is likewise discretionary upon the church since it is a matter of governance of congregation. We are left to determine whether respondent's removal as a missionary of Abiko Baptist Church is an ecclesiastical affair. Indeed, the matter of terminating an employee, which is purely secular in nature, is different from the ecclesiastical act of expelling a member from the religious congregation.[26] Petitioners insist that this case is an ecclesiastical affair as there is no employer-employee relationship between BSAABC/MBIS and respondent. In order to settle the issue, it is imperative to determine the existence of an employeremployee relationship. We have previously ruled that "[i]n an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that its dismissal of an employee was for a valid cause. However, before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, an employeremployee relationship must first be established. Thus, in filing a complaint before the LA for illegal dismissal, based on the premise that he was an employee of [petitioners], it is incumbent upon [respondent] to prove the employer-employee relationship by substantial evidence."[27] Although based on the Rule 45 parameters, the Court cannot generally touch factual matters, We allow certain exceptions in the exercise of our discretionary appellate jurisdiction, all in the interest of giving substance and meaning to the justice We are sworn to uphold and give primacy to.[28] Thus, We deem it appropriate to re-examine the records and analyze the appreciation on of evidence by the lower tribunals. The lower tribunals used the "four-fold test" in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, to wit: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the power to control the employee's conduct.[29] First, the LA and the CA anchored their findings of employer-employee relationship on the Appointment Paper presented by respondent. This evidence, however, refers to his appointment as an instructor, as well as his duties and responsibilities as such; but, to emphasize, respondent as removed as a missionary of Abiko Baptist Church, not as an instructor of MBIS. There is no evidence or allegation to show that respondent's status as a missionary is the same or dependent on his appointment as an instructor of MBIS. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66079 4/24