SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

DISSENTING OPINION

MELO, J.:

Customarily and generally, the civil courts would not interfere in matters involving disputes within a religious corporation, not only because the question may be essentially ecclesiatical in nature but more importantly because of the fundamental principle of separation church and State provided in our Constitution. This general rule, however, is admittedly subject to certain exceptions, and I submit that the instant case is one such instance.

In Romero vs. De los Reyes (14 Phil. 115 [1965]), we upheld the general rule that:

The amendment of the constitution, restatement of articles of religion and abandonment of faith or abjuration alleged by appellant, having to do with faith, practice, doctrine, from or worship, ecclesiastical law, custom and rule of a church and having reference to the power of excluding from the church those allegedly unworthy of membership, are unquestionably ecclesiatical matters which are outside the province of civil courts.

(p.128.)

But, in Lions Club International vs. Amores (121 SCRA 621 [1983]), we defined certain exceptions to this general rule, holding thus:

... the courts will not interfere with the internal affairs of an unincorporated association so as to settle disputes between the members or questions of policy, discipline or internal government, so long as the government of the society is fairly and honestly administered in conformity with its laws and the laws of the land, and no property or civil rights are invaded. Under such circumstances, the decision of the association is binding and conclusive and is not subject to review or collateral attacks in the courts.

The general rule of non-interference in the internal affairs of associations is, however, subject to exceptions, but the power of review is extremely limited. Accordingly, the courts have and will exercise the power to interfere in the internal affairs of an association where law and justice so require, and the proceedings of the association are subject to judicial review where there is fraud, oppression, or bad faith, or where the action complained of is capricious, arbitrary, or unjustly discriminatory. Also, the courts will usually entertain jurisdiction to grant relief in case property or civil rights are invaded, although it has also been held that the involvement of property rights does not necessarily authorize judicial intervention, in the absence of arbitrariness, fraud or collusion. Moreover, the courts will intervene where the proceedings in question are violative of the laws of the society, or the law of the land, as by depriving a person of due process of law. Similarly, judicial intervention is warranted where there is lack of jurisdiction on the part of the tribunal conducting the proceedings, where the organization exceeds its powers, or where the proceedings are otherwise illegal.

(p.628)

What is in issue in the present consolidated petitions is whether or not the expulsion of some of the members of the religious community called The Church in Quezon City (CQC), contravene the laws of the land or are violative of the civil rights of the members thereof.

I vote in the affirmative.

As clearly stated in Lions Club International, the general rule of non-interference admits of certain exception: The civil courts can review proceedings undertaken by religious organizations and may interfere, so to speak, with the internal affairs thereof, as law and justice so require, when the acts complained of contravene the basic law of the land and violate the civil rights of its members. More specifically, where there is fraud, oppression, or bad faith, and where the action of the leaders of the organization is capricious, arbitrary, and unjustly discriminatory, the civil courts may exercise judicial power. The courts will likewise exercise jurisdiction to grant relief in case property or civil rights are invaded, although it has also been held that involvement of property rights does not necessarily authorize judicial intervention, in the absence of arbitrariness, fraud, and collusion. Another specific instance when intervention by the courts becomes warranted is when the proceedings in question are violative of either the by-laws of the society itself or the basic law of the land, such as when there is a violation of the fundamental right to due process of law. Similarly, judicial intervention is warranted where there is lack of jurisdiction on the part of the tribunal conducting the proceedings, where the organization exceeds its powers, or where the proceedings are otherwise illegal.

The factual antecedents of the present case bring it squarely within the exception to the general rule of non-interference or non-intervention. It must be underscored that the issue does not merely involve the right to use the property of CQC in the present case, but more importantly that the expulsion from CQC does constitute a serious emotional deprivation on the part of each of petitioners which, when compared to losses of property or contractual rights, can be far more damaging and prejudicial. Further, the loss of the opportunity to worship in familiar surroundings is a valuable right, which deserves the protection of the law where no constitutional barrier exists (Baugh v. Thomas, 265 A. 2d 675).

In this regard, I do not think that it would be proper for the Court to dismiss the issue on mere technicalities, ruling that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) erred in re-opening the case which had previously become final and executory. The Perea case had indeed become final and executory but it pertained only to the preliminary remedy sought by petitioners. As correctly pointed out in the majority opinion, the hearing panel conducted further proceedings to decide the permissive counterclaim and third-party complaint incorporated in respondents supplemental answer, including their prayer for injunctive relief to prevent petitioners from interfering and usurping functions of the Board of Directors. Petitioners filed motions to dismiss/strike out the counterclaim and third-party complaint. These motions were denied by the hearing panel in an Omnibus Order date October 2, 1995.

The motions for reconsideration of both parties were subsequently denied. Thereafter, respondents (not petitioners), filed a petition for review with the SEC En Banc which was docketed therein as SEC EB Case No. 484. This certiorari proceeding where the SEC En Banc issued the Order dated July 31, 1996 gave rise to the instant review. In other words, respondents were the ones who invoked the certiorari powers of the SEC En Banc which took cognizance of the issue if the propriety of the expulsion of the complaining members of the CQC. It would not be fair for respondents to now turn around and say that the SEC is guilty of gross disregard of the rules and basic legal precepts that accord finality to administrative, quasi-judicial, and judicial determination, or res judicata.

It is, thus, essential for us to determine whether respondents complied with the requirements of CQCs By-Laws before they expelled petitioners. The applicable provision reads:

4. If it is brought to the notice of the Board of Directors that any member has failed to observe any regulations and By-Laws of the Institution or the conduct of any member has been dishonorable or improper or otherwise injurious to the character and interest of the Institution, the Board of Directors may by resolution, without assigning any reason therefore, expel such member from the Institution and he shall then forfeit his interest, rights and privileges in the Institution.

(Article VII, By-Laws)

This particular provision was explained by the incorporators during the hearing on the registration of CQC with the SEC, as intended to give the member a chance to explain:

Q : May we know from what are the discipline imposed by the proposed church to the members, if any?

MR. ONG:

A. We have here the Rules and Regulations of the CHURCH IN QUEZON CITY (CHURCH ASSEMBLY HALL), INC., which for purposes of identification we request that the same be marked as Exhibit C, consisting of 2 pages, dated May 2, 1973.

ATTY. TANINGCO:

Let the document mentioned be marked accordingly.

Q. Now, on the second page of this Rules and Regulations that is previously marked Exhibit C, there appears above the typewritten name Lydia Lao a signature. Will you please take a look at this signature and tell us whose signature is this?

MISS LAO:

A. This is my signature, your honor.

Q. Also, in the second page of this Rules and Regulations, there appears as one of the provisions, entitled Punishment, will you please explain to this Commission the meaning of this? It says that any member found to be inimical to or unfaithful to the teaching or doctrines of the brotherhood of the Church in Quezon City (Church Assembly Hall), Inc., will be removed from membership.

A. Any member who acts or believes contrary to our doctrine stated in the bible or the faith that we are adhering, then he will be requested to leave.

Q. Who decides that a member should be requested to leave when found guilty?

A. Our responsible brothers and sisters.

Q. Is he not given a chance to explain his acts?

A. He is given a chance to explain.

(tsn, August 8, 1973)

It was indeed reversible error for the Court of Appeals to ignore the clear intent of the CQC that its members be accorded due process of law by giving them a chance to explain prior to expulsion.

Of course, respondents insist that petitioners were in fact accorded due process despite the fact that it was not necessary under their By-Laws. The record, however, shows otherwise. During the hearing conducted on November 15, 1993, Anthony Sayheeliam admitted that the expelled members were not notified of the grounds for their expulsion, and were not given the opportunity to defend themselves.

ATTY. PAULITE:

Q. Did you go through the list one by one?

ANTHONY SAYHEELIAM:

A. Yes.

Q. So do you remember how many were expelled because of conduct dishonorable, improper, injurious to the corporation?

A. At the time we did not count the number. We just talked it one by one, discussed...

Q. Okey, Did your notify them of the grounds for their expulsion?

A. No.

Q. You did not. Did you give them an opportunity to defend themselves?

A. No.

(tsn, November 15, 1993, pp. 51-52.)

The procedural requirement spelled out in their By-Laws was evidently not met at all.

I, therefore, agree with the SEC when it ruled that a member could be expelled only after notice and hearing. Petitioners correctly assert that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that no prior notice or hearing is required as the By-Laws were silent on the matter. It has been held that the right to be advised in advance of the charges is a fundamental right to which the member is entitled even without a by-law provision. (Namentra, Inc. v. American Society of Travel Agents, Inc, 28 Misc 2d 291, 211 NY S2d 655 cited in Fletcher Cyclopedia Corporation, Vol. 12 A, 803, 810). This is in accord with the principles established in Article 19 of the Civil Code, enjoining every person to act with justice, to give every one his due, and to observe honesty and good faith.

As specifically applied to religious organizations, we have ruled in United States vs. Caete (38 Phil. 253 [1918]):

... Thus the general cause of public morality which under lies all good government, an which every good citizen, be he priest or layman, is bound to promote, is affected by the fidelity with which ministers of the gospel discharge the high trust of their appointment. In order to be successful public teachers of morality, they must be unspotted public exemplars of it. Hence, if it be suspected that a wolf in sheeps clothing has invaded their rank, and sits at their counsel board, it is not only for the interest of all the members of the association to know the fact, but it is their imperative duty to make inquiry and ascertain the fact. They owe such duty to the plaintiff as a brother member, if he is charged with scandalous conduct, to the end that his innocence may be established. They owe it to themselves, lest by indifference they give apparent approval to his conduct. Their intimate official relation to the plaintiff in the cause of their common work leaves them no alternative; and if, in making such inquiry and in acting upon the subject matter of it, they proceed with honesty of purpose and act from a sense of duty, the law protects them.

(p. 263.)

It is a matter of public policy that the charges against the members of the CQC be investigated with a specific obligation to the member that he be given an opportunity to establish his innocence. And this can only be done if he is given a chance to be heard. The due process clause of the Constitution requires notice and opportunity to be heard before any person can lawfully be deprived of his rights.

In addition to the foregoing, I also believe that the resolution of respondents approving the August 30, 1993 list of membership in the Church is void. Respondents failed to comply with Section 53 of the Corporation Code that requires that notices of meetings of the board of directors should be given at least one day prior to the meeting. Respondents failed to establish that petitioners Lim Che Boon and Tan Hon Koc were duly notified of the meeting of the Board of Directors during which the August 30, 1993 list of members was adopted. There was no duly assembled quorum at the time the resolution was discussed and voted upon as required under Article IV, Paragraph E of the CQCs By-Laws.

In view of the foregoing, I believe that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioners petition in SEC Case No. 02-95-49949. The exclusion of petitioners being null and void, their standing as bona fide members of the CQC continues. Thus, the election among the majority of the members of the CQC, including petitioners herein who are deemed not to have been excluded therefrom, conducted on June 20, 1994 was in accordance with the By-Laws and should be considered valid, together with all other acts emanating therefrom. The list of members indicated in the Churchs Membership Book (Annex Q in G.R. No. 134963-64) should be the complete list of the membership of the CQC.

It is unrebutted that respondents group comprises merely the minority in the CQC. The meeting called by private respondents on February 12, 1995, which excluded petitioners group, was not valid considering that it was called by a person who is not a member of the CQC or a director thereof. The acts then of respondents as a result of their meeting are void as they were conducted without notice to or in the absence of the other members of the CQC. The members of the Board, duly elected by the majority as determined from the Membership Book are deemed valid.

Finally, the charges between the parties that the other has diverted from the faith and principles of their organization are purely ecclesiastical matters and the Court should refrain from ruling thereon. It may be noted, however, that it is undisputed that the CQC was founded by Witness Lee. It is thus a matter to be resolved by the members of the institution whether those who continue to look at Witness Lee should be deemed to have diverted from their faith (as claimed by respondents), or it is respondents who have diverted their faith by their denial of the role of Witness Lee in the CQC (as claimed by petitioners).

Under the foregoing premises, I, therefore, register my dissent and vote to grant the petition for certiorari. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 29, 1998 in C.A. G.R. SP No. 31551 and 43389, and their Resolution dated August 18, 1998, which denied petitioners Almeris and Longs motion for reconsideration, should be REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the Order of the SEC dated July 31, 1996, be REINSTATED.