4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The CA recognized that there may be a scenario where a minister is removed from his employment as a consequence of his exclusion from the church. But in such situation, the church, as employer, can and should deal with the employment aspect separately and observe due process.[17] It also held that respondent was an employee of BSAABC and MBIS because of the existence of the four (4) elements which determine an employment relationship. First, as to the selection and engagement of the employee, the CA said that the Appointment Paper was credible evidence of BSAABC and MBIS' power to select and engage him as an employee. Second, the payment of wages was shown through the "love gifts" given to respondent who was even described as a "salaried missionary." Third, the power of control was shown in the duties enumerated in the Appointment Paper, together with BSAABC's evident power to order him to areas of mission work. Finally, the November 24, 2011 Letter clearly established the power of dismissal.[18] The CA found no just cause for the termination of respondent's employment. It dismissed the claim of BSAABC that respondent disobeyed it by building his own house, instead of a church, on its property without its consent. The Certification[19] presented by respondent disproves the claim that he was not authorized to build his own house thereon. It also appears that any misunderstanding was already settled between the parties citing the Agreement[20] between respondent and BSAABC dated February 23, 2010. Also, there was no credible proof of respondent's supposed refusal to be reassigned to another area.[21] Issue Petitioners raise the sole issue of whether the CA erred in ruling that respondent was illegally dismissed despite the fact that the dispute involves an ecclesiastical affair as the latter was a member of the Abiko Baptist Church.[22] The Court's Ruling At the outset, the Court finds the need to distinguish a purely ecclesiastical affair from a secular matter. While the State is prohibited from interfering in purely ecclesiastical affairs, the Church is likewise barred from meddling in purely secular matters.[23] An ecclesiastical affair is '"one that concerns doctrine, creed, or form of worship of the church, or the adoption and enforcement within a religious association of needful laws and regulations for the government of the membership, and the power of excluding from such associations those deemed unworthy of membership.' Based on this definition, an ecclesiastical affair involves the relationship between the church and its members and relate[s] to matters of faith, religious doctrines, worship and governance of the congregation. To be concrete, examples of these so-called ecclesiastical affairs in which the State cannot meddle are proceedings for excommunication, ordinations of religious ministers, administration of sacraments and other activities with attached religious significance."[24] Secular matters, on the other hand, have no relation whatsoever with the practice of faith, worship or doctrines of the church.[25] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66079 3/24