8/21/2019 3. Austria v. Nlrc

1/2

AUSTRIA v. NLRC, G.R. NO. 124382, AUGUST 16, 1999

FACTS:

Petitioner Austria worked with the SDA for twenty eight (28) years. On various occasions,

 petitioner received severa co!!unications fro! "r. #$esate, the treasurer of the %egros "ission

asking hi! to ad!it accounta$iity and responsi$iity for the church tithes and offerings coected

 $y his wife, in his district, and to re!it the sa!e to the %egros "ission. #n his written

e&panation, petitioner reasoned out that he shoud not $e !ade accounta$e for the unre!itted

coections since it was private respondents Pastor 'uhat and "r. #$esate who authoried his wife

to coect the tithes and offerings since he was very sick to do the coecting at that ti!e.

hereafter, petitioner went to the office of Pastor 'uhat, the president of the %egros "ission,

where tried to persuade Pastor 'uhat to convene the *&ecutive +o!!ittee for the purpose of 

setting the dispute $etween hi! and the private respondent, Pastor David odrigo. Pastor 'uhat

denied the re-uest of petitioner since so!e co!!ittee !e!$ers were out of town and there was

no -uoru!. hereafter, the two e&changed heated argu!ents.

On a ater date, petitioner received a etter inviting hi! and his wife to attend the *&ecutive

+o!!ittee !eeting. o $e discussed in the !eeting were the nonre!ittance of church coection

and the events that transpired at the office of Pastor 'uhat.

Su$se-uenty, petitioner received a etter of dis!issa citing !isappropriation of deno!inationa

funds, wifu $reach of trust, serious !isconduct, gross and ha$itua negect of duties, andco!!ission of an offense against the person of e!poyer/s duy authoried representative, as

grounds for the ter!ination of his services.

eacting against the adverse decision of the SDA, petitioner fied a co!paint $efore the 0a$or 

Ar$iter for iega dis!issa against the SDA and its officers and prayed for reinstate!ent with

 $ackwages and $enefits, !ora and e&e!pary da!ages and other a$or aw $enefits. he 0a$or Ar$iter rendered a decision in favor of petitioner. he SDA, through its officers, appeaed the

decision of the 0a$or Ar$iter to the %ationa 0a$or 0a$or eations +o!!ission, where the

 %0+ vacated the findings of the 0a$or Ar$iter. Petitioner fied a !otion for reconsideration of 

the a$ovena!ed decision. he %0+ then issued a esoution reversing its origina decision. #n

view of the reversa of the origina decision of the %0+, the SDA fied a !otion for 

reconsideration of the a$ove resoution. Private respondents invoked that the 0a$or Ar$iter has no

 1urisdiction over the co!paint fied $y petitioner due to the constitutiona provision on the

separation of church and state since the case aegedy invoved an eccesiastica affair to which

the State cannot interfere. he %0+, without ruing on the !erits of the case, reversed itsef 

once again, sustained the argu!ent posed $y private respondents and, accordingy, dis!issed the

co!paint of petitioner. Petitioner sought recourse with the Supre!e +ourt.

ISSUES:

) 3hether or not the 0a$or Ar$iter4%0+ has 1urisdiction to try and decide the co!paint fied

 $y petitioner against the SDA5 2) 3hether or not the ter!ination of the services of petitioner is an

eccesiastica affair, and, as such, invoves the separation of church and state5 and 6) 3hether or 

not such ter!ination is vaid.

RULING:

8/21/2019 3. Austria v. Nlrc

2/2

7 2) he principe of separation of church and state finds no appication in this case. he case

at $ar does not concern an eccesiastica or purey reigious affair as to $ar the State fro! taking

cogniance of the sa!e. An eccesiastica affair invoves the reationship $etween the church and

its !e!$ers and reate to !atters of faith, reigious doctrines, worship and governance of the

congregation. 3hie the !atter at hand reates to the church and its reigious !inister it does notipso facto give the case a reigious significance. Si!py stated, what is invoved here is the

reationship of the church as an e!poyer and the !inister as an e!poyee. #t is purey secuar andhas no reation whatsoever with the practice of faith, worship or doctrines of the church.

nder the 0a$or +ode, the provision which governs the dis!issa of e!poyees, isco!prehensive enough to incude reigious corporations, such as the SDA, in its coverage. Artice

298 of the 0a$or +ode on poste!poy!ent states that :the provisions of this ite sha appy to

a esta$ish!ents or undertakings, whether for profit or not.: O$viousy, the cited artice does not

!ake any e&ception in favor of a reigious corporation.

6) %o. #n ter!ination cases, the setted rue is that the $urden of proving that the ter!ination was

for a vaid or authoried cause rests on the e!poyer. hus, private respondents !ust not !erey

rey on the weaknesses of petitioner/s evidence $ut !ust stand on the !erits of their own defense.

he issue $eing the egaity of petitioner/s dis!issa, the sa!e !ust $e !easured against the

re-uisites for a vaid dis!issa, na!ey; (a) the e!poyee !ust $e afforded due process, i.e., he

!ust $e given an opportunity to $e heard and to defend hi!sef, and5 ($) the dis!issa !ust $e for 

a vaid cause as provided in Artice 282 of the 0a$or +ode. 3ithout the concurrence of this twin

re-uire!ents, the ter!ination woud, in the eyes of the aw, $e iega.

'efore the services of an e!poyee can $e vaidy ter!inated, Artice 299 ($) of the 0a$or +ode

and Section 2, ue