4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly November 24, 2011 Letter, this alone cannot establish an employer-employee relationship. Lastly, as to the power of control, the CA ruled that the duties enumerated in the Appointment Paper, together with BSAABC's power to order respondent to areas of mission work, as well as the Mission Policy Agreement, all indicated the exercise of control. We do not agree. The use of the LA and CA of the Appointment Paper, as basis of the employer-employee relationship in this case, is misplaced considering that respondent failed to establish that such duties enumerated therein are the duties only of a missionary. Again, the said document refers to respondent's status as an instructor of MBIS. Even then, this Court sees that respondent's appointment as instructor of petitioners' own educational institution was by virtue of his membership with Abiko Baptist Church. It is one of his duties as a missionary/minister of the same. He himself admitted that he was teaching "bible history, philosophy, Christian doctrine, public speaking, English and other religious subjects to seminarians in [MBIS intending] to be [a] pastor/minister[.]"[39] These subject matters and how they prepare or educate their ministers are ecclesiastical in nature which the State cannot regulate unless there is clear violation of secular laws. It follows, therefore, that even his alleged exclusion as instructor is beyond the power of review by the State considering that this is purely an ecclesiastical affair. It is up to the members of the religious congregation to determine whether their minister still lives up to the beliefs they stand for, continues to share his knowledge, and remains an exemplar of faith to the members of their church. True, the Mission Policy Agreement may show badges of control over its members and missionaries; nevertheless, respondent, as member of the religious congregation, must be subjected to a certain sense of control for the church to achieve the ends of its belief. As to the power to order respondent to areas of mission work, the Court deems it appropriate not to expound on this because aside from the fact that it is a mere allegation, it is also an ecclesiastical matter as it concerns governance of the congregation. Other than the Appointment Paper (as an instructor), no other evidence was adduced by respondent to show an employer-employee relationship. Respondent, as the one alleging an employer-employee relationship, failed to establish with clear and convincing evidence that such relationship exists. With this, We do not see the need to discuss whether the dismissal as a missionary was illegal as it is clearly an ecclesiastical affair. Respondent is trying to confuse the Court in claiming that his appointment as instructor of MBIS is basis of an employer-employee relationship while at the same time, claiming the benefits accorded him as a missionary of BSAABC, such as the privilege to live on the latter's property and the financial support he was receiving. Respondent obviously filed the instant case to protect his property rights over the house he built on the land of BSAABC, which is not within the ambit of a labor case. Then again, he was not able to sufficiently prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship which is the first requirement to claim relief in a labor case. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66079 6/24