Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 124382 August 16, 1999
PASTOR DIONISIO V. AUSTRIA, petitioner,
vs.
HON. NATIONA A!OR REATIONS COMMISSION
"#ou$t% D&'&s&o(), CE!U CIT*, CENTRA PHIIPPINE
UNION MISSION CORPORATION O# THE SEVENTH+DA*
ADVENTISTS, EDER HECTOR V. GA*ARES, PASTORS
REU!EN MORADE, OSCAR . AOOR, ,IIAM U.
DONATO, -OE ,AES, E* SACA*, GIDEON !UHAT,
ISACHAR GARSUA, EISEO DO!E, POR#IRIO !AAC*,
DAVID RODRIGO, ORETO MA*PA, MR. RU#O GASAPO,
MR. EU#RONIO I!ESATE, MRS. TESSIE !AAC*, MR.
.OSIMO /ARA+AN, 0(1 MR. EEUTERIO
O!ITANA, respondents.
/APUNAN, J.:
Subect of the instant petition for certiorari under Rule !" of
the Rules of #ourt is the Resolution
$
of public respondent
National %abor Relations #o&&ission 'the (N%R#(), rendered
on *+ ,anuar- $..!, in N%R# #ase No. V/0$*0/.+, entitled
(Pastor Dionisio V. 1ustria vs. #entral Philippine 2nion
Mission #orporation of Seventh Da- 1dventists, et al.,(
3hich dis&issed the case for ille4al dis&issal 5led b- the
petitioner a4ainst private respondents for lac6 of
urisdiction.1wphi1.nt
Private Respondent #entral Philippine 2nion Mission
#orporation of the Seventh/Da- 1dventists 'hereinafter
referred to as the (SD1() is a reli4ious corporation dul-
or4ani7ed and e8istin4 under Philippine la3 and is
represented in this case b- the other private respondents,
o9cers of the SD1. Petitioner, on the other hand, 3as a
Pastor of the SD1 until +$ October $..$, 3hen his services
3ere ter&inated.
The records sho3 that petitioner Pastor Dionisio V. 1ustria
3or6ed 3ith the SD1 for t3ent- ei4ht '*:) -ears fro& $.!+
to $..$.
*
;e be4an his 3or6 3ith the SD1 on $" ,ul- $.!+ as
a literature evan4elist, sellin4 literature of the SD1 over the
island of Ne4ros. Fro& then on, petitioner 3or6ed his 3a- up
the ladder and 4ot pro&oted several ti&es. In ,anuar-,
$.!:, petitioner beca&e the 1ssistant Publishin4 Director in
the <est Visa-an Mission of the SD1. In ,ul-, $.=*, he 3as
elevated to the position of Pastor in the <est Visa-an
Mission coverin4 the island of Pana-, and the provinces of
Ro&blon and >ui&aras. Petitioner held the sa&e position up
to $.::. Finall-, in $.:., petitioner 3as pro&oted as District
Pastor of the Ne4ros Mission of the SD1 and 3as assi4ned at
Sa4a-, ?alinta3a6 and Toboso, Ne4ros Occidental, 3ith
t3elve '$*) churches under his urisdiction. In ,anuar-, $..$,
petitioner 3as transferred to ?acolod #it-. ;e held the
position of district pastor until his services 3ere ter&inated
on +$ October $..$.
On various occasions fro& 1u4ust up to October, $..$,
petitioner received several co&&unications
+
fro& Mr.
@ufronio Ibesate, the treasurer of the Ne4ros Mission as6in4
hi& to ad&it accountabilit- and responsibilit- for the church
tithes and oAerin4s collected b- his 3ife, Mrs. Thel&a
1ustria, in his district 3hich a&ounted to P$",0=:.$0, and to
re&it the sa&e to the Ne4ros Mission.
In his 3ritten e8planation dated $$ October $..$,
B
petitioner
reasoned out that he should not be &ade accountable for
the unre&itted collections since it 3as private respondents
Pastor >ideon ?uhat and Mr. @ufronio Ibesate 3ho
authori7ed his 3ife to collect the tithes and oAerin4s since
he 3as ver- sic6 to do the collectin4 at that ti&e.
Thereafter, on $! October $..$, at around =C+0 a.&.,
petitioner 3ent to the o9ce of Pastor ?uhat, the president of
the Ne4ros Mission. Durin4 said call, petitioner tried to
persuade Pastor ?uhat to convene the @8ecutive #o&&ittee
for the purpose of settlin4 the dispute bet3een hi& and the
private respondent, Pastor David Rodri4o. The dispute
bet3een Pastor Rodri4o and petitioner arose fro& an
incident in 3hich petitioner assisted his friend, Dann-
Dia&ada, to collect fro& Pastor Rodri4o the unpaid balance
for the repair of the latterDs &otor vehicle 3hich he failed to
pa- to Dia&ada.
"
Due to the assistance of petitioner in
collectin4 Pastor Rodri4oDs debt, the latter harbored ill/
feelin4s a4ainst petitioner. <hen ne3s reached petitioner
that Pastor Rodri4o 3as about to 5le a co&plaint a4ainst
hi& 3ith the Ne4ros Mission, he i&&ediatel- proceeded to
the o9ce of Pastor ?uhat on the date above&entioned and
as6ed the latter to convene the @8ecutive #o&&ittee. Pastor
?uhat denied the reEuest of petitioner since so&e
co&&ittee &e&bers 3ere out of to3n and there 3as
no quorum. Thereafter, the t3o e8chan4ed heated
ar4u&ents. Petitioner then left the o9ce of Pastor ?uhat.
<hile on his 3a- out, petitioner overheard Pastor ?uhat
sa-in4, (Pastor da3 iniso4 na ina i-a 'Pador -ou are tal6in4
tou4h).(
!
Ir6ed b- such re&ar6, petitioner returned to the
o9ce of Pastor ?uhat, and tried to overturn the latterDs
table, thou4h unsuccessfull-, since it 3as heav-. Thereafter,
petitioner ban4ed the attachF case of Pastor ?uhat on the
table, scattered the boo6s in his o9ce, and thre3 the
phone.
=
Fortunatel-, private respondents Pastors Gonilo
%eopoldo and #laudio MontaHo 3ere around and the-
paci5ed both Pastor ?uhat and petitioner.
On $= October $..$, petitioner received a letter
:
invitin4
hi& and his 3ife to attend the @8ecutive #o&&ittee
&eetin4 at the Ne4ros Mission #onference Roo& on *$
October $..$, at nine in the &ornin4. To be discussed in the
&eetin4 3ere the non/re&ittance of church collection and
the events that transpired on $! October $..$. 1 fact/
5ndin4 co&&ittee 3as created to investi4ate petitioner. For
t3o '*) da-s, fro& October *$ and **, the fact/5ndin4
co&&ittee conducted an investi4ation of petitioner. Sensin4
that the result of the investi4ation &i4ht be one/sided,
petitioner i&&ediatel- 3rote Pastor Rueben Moralde,
president of the SD1 and chair&an of the fact/5ndin4
co&&ittee, reEuestin4 that certain &e&bers of the fact/
5ndin4 co&&ittee be e8cluded in the investi4ation and
resolution of the case.
.
Out of the si8 '!) &e&bers
reEuested to inhibit the&selves fro& the investi4ation and
decision/&a6in4, onl- t3o '*) 3ere actuall- e8cluded,
na&el-C Pastor ?uhat and Pastor Rodri4o. SubseEuentl-, on
*. October $..$, petitioner received a letter of
dis&issal
$0
citin4 &isappropriation of deno&inational funds,
3illful breach of trust, serious &isconduct, 4ross and
habitual ne4lect of duties, and co&&ission of an oAense
a4ainst the person of e&plo-erDs dul- authori7ed
representative, as 4rounds for the ter&ination of his
services.
Reactin4 a4ainst the adverse decision of the SD1, petitioner
5led a co&plaint
$$
on $B Nove&ber $..$, before the %abor
1rbiter for ille4al dis&issal a4ainst the SD1 and its o9cers
and pra-ed for reinstate&ent 3ith bac63a4es and bene5ts,
&oral and e8e&plar- da&a4es and other labor la3 bene5ts.
On $" Februar- $..+, %abor 1rbiter #esar D. SideHo
rendered a decision in favor of petitioner, the dispositive
portion of 3hich reads thusC
<;@R@FOR@, PR@MIS@S #ONSID@R@D, respondents
#@NTR1% P;I%IPPIN@ 2NION MISSION #ORPOR1TION
OF T;@ S@V@NT;/D1G 1DV@NTISTS '#P2M#SD1) and
its o9cers, respondents herein, are hereb- ordered
to i&&ediatel- reinstate co&plainant Pastor Dionisio
1ustria to his for&er position as Pastor of ?r4-.
Taculin4, Pro4reso and ?ana4o, ?acolod #it-, 3ithout
loss of seniorit- and other ri4hts and bac63a4es in
the a&ount of ON@ ;2NDR@D FIFT@@N T;O2S1ND
@I>;T ;2NDR@D T;IRTG P@SOS 'P$$",:+0.00)
3ithout deductions and Euali5catioons.
Respondent #P2M#SD1 is further ordered to pa-
co&plainant the follo3in4C
1. $+th &onth pa- I P *$,0!0.00
?. 1llo3ance I P B,==0.:+
#. Service Incentive
%eave Pa- I P +,B!$.:"
D. Moral Da&a4es I P "0,000.00
@. @8e&plar-
Da&a4es I P *",000.00
F. 1ttorne-Ds Fee I P **,0$*.*=
SO ORD@R@D.
$*
The SD1, throu4h its o9cers, appealed the decision of the
%abor 1rbiter to the National %abor %abor Relations
#o&&ission, Fourth Division, #ebu #it-. In a decision, dated
*! 1u4ust $..B, the N%R# vacated the 5ndin4s of the %abor
1rbiter. The decretal portion of the N%R# decision statesC
<;@R@FOR@, the Decision appealed fro& is hereb-
V1#1T@D and a ne3 one @NT@R@D dis&issin4 this
case for 3ant of &erit.
SO ORD@R@D.
$+
Petitioner 5led a &otion for reconsideration of the above/
na&ed decision. On $: ,ul- $..", the N%R# issued a
Resolution reversin4 its ori4inal decision. The dispositive
portion of the resolution readsC
<;@R@FOR@, pre&ises considered, Our decision
dated 1u4ust *!, $..B is V1#1T@D and the decision
of the %abor 1rbiter dated Februar- $", $..+ is
R@INST1T@D.
SO ORD@R@D.
$B
In vie3 of the reversal of the ori4inal decision of the N%R#,
the SD1 5led a &otion for reconsideration of the above
resolution. Notable in the &otion for reconsideration 5led b-
private respondents is their invocation, for the 5rst ti&e on
appeal, that the %abor 1rbiter has no urisdiction over the
co&plaint 5led b- petitioner due to the constitutional
provision on the separation of church and state since the
case alle4edl- involved an ecclesiastical aAair to 3hich the
State cannot interfere.
The N%R#, 3ithout rulin4 on the &erits of the case, reversed
itself once a4ain, sustained the ar4u&ent posed b- private
respondents and, accordin4l-, dis&issed the co&plaint of
petitioner. The dispositive portion of the N%R# resolution
dated *+ ,anuar- $..!, subect of the present petition, is as
follo3sC
<;@R@FOR@, in vie3 of all the fore4oin4, the instant
&otion for reconsideration is hereb- 4ranted.
1ccordin4l-, this case is hereb- DISMISS@D for lac6 of
urisdiction.
SO ORD@R@D.
$"
;ence, the recourse to this #ourt b- petitioner.
1fter the 5lin4 of the petition, the #ourt ordered the O9ce of
the Solicitor >eneral 'the (OS>() to 5le its co&&ent on
behalf of public respondent N%R#. Interestin4l-, the OS>
5led a &anifestation and &otion in lieu of co&&ent
$!
settin4
forth its stand that it cannot sustain the resolution of the
N%R#. In its &anifestation, the OS> sub&its that the
ter&ination of petitioner fro& his e&plo-&ent &a- be
Euestioned before the N%R# as the sa&e is secular in
nature, not ecclesiastical. 1fter the sub&ission of
&e&oranda of all the parties, the case 3as sub&itted for
decision.
The issues to be resolved in this petition areC
$) <hether or not the %abor 1rbiterJN%R# has
urisdiction to tr- and decide the co&plaint 5led b-
petitioner a4ainst the SD1K
*) <hether or not the ter&ination of the services of
petitioner is an ecclesiastical aAair, and, as such,
involves the separation of church and stateK and
+) <hether or not such ter&ination is valid.
The 5rst t3o issues shall be resolved ointl-, since the- are
related.
Private respondents contend that b- virtue of the doctrine of
separation of church and state, the %abor 1rbiter and the
N%R# have no urisdiction to entertain the co&plaint 5led b-
petitioner. Since the &atter at bar alle4edl- involves the
discipline of a reli4ious &inister, it is to be considered a
purel- ecclesiastical aAair to 3hich the State has no ri4ht to
interfere.
The contention of private respondents deserves scant
consideration. The principle of separation of church and
state 5nds no application in this case.
The rationale of the principle of the separation of church and
state is su&&ed up in the fa&iliar sa-in4, (Stron4 fences
&a6e 4ood/nei4hbors.(
$=
The idea advocated b- this
principle is to delineate the boundaries bet3een the t3o
institutions and thus avoid encroach&ents b- one a4ainst
the other because of a &isunderstandin4 of the li&its of
their respective e8clusive urisdictions.
$:
The de&arcation
line calls on the entities to (render therefore unto #easar the
thin4s that are #easarDs and unto >od the thin4s that are
>odDs.(
$.
<hile the state is prohibited fro& interferin4 in
purel- ecclesiastical aAairs, the #hurch is li6e3ise barred
fro& &eddlin4 in purel- secular &atters.
*0
The case at bar does not concern an ecclesiastical or purel-
reli4ious aAair as to bar the State fro& ta6in4 co4ni7ance of
the sa&e. 1n ecclesiastical aAair is (one that concerns
doctrine, creed, or for& of 3orship of the church, or the
adoption and enforce&ent 3ithin a reli4ious association of
needful la3s and re4ulations for the 4overn&ent of the
&e&bership, and the po3er of e8cludin4 fro& such
associations those dee&ed un3orth- of
&e&bership.
*$
?ased on this de5nition, an ecclesiastical
aAair involves the relationship bet3een the church and its
&e&bers and relate to &atters of faith, reli4ious doctrines,
3orship and 4overnance of the con4re4ation. To be
concrete, e8a&ples of this so/called ecclesiastical aAairs to
3hich the State cannot &eddle are proceedin4s for
e8co&&unication, ordinations of reli4ious &inisters,
ad&inistration of sacra&ents and other activities 3ith
attached reli4ious si4ni5cance. The case at bar does not
even re&otel- concern an- of the abovecited e8a&ples.
<hile the &atter at hand relates to the church and its
reli4ious &inister it does not ipso facto 4ive the case a
reli4ious si4ni5cance. Si&pl- stated, 3hat is involved here is
the relationship of the church as an e&plo-er and the
&inister as an e&plo-ee. It is purel- secular and has no
relation 3hatsoever 3ith the practice of faith, 3orship or
doctrines of the church. In this case, petitioner 3as not e8/
co&&unicated or e8pelled fro& the &e&bership of the SD1
but 3as ter&inated fro& e&plo-&ent. Indeed, the &atter of
ter&inatin4 an e&plo-ee, 3hich is purel- secular in nature,
is diAerent fro& the ecclesiastical act of e8pellin4 a &e&ber
fro& the reli4ious con4re4ation.
1s pointed out b- the OS> in its &e&orandu&, the 4rounds
invo6ed for petitionerDs dis&issal, na&el-C &isappropriation
of deno&inational funds, 3illful breach of trust, serious
&isconduct, 4ross and habitual ne4lect of duties and
co&&ission of an oAense a4ainst the person of his
e&plo-erDs dul- authori7ed representative, are all based on
1rticle *:* of the %abor #ode 3hich enu&erates the ust
causes for ter&ination of e&plo-&ent.
**
?- this alone, it is
palpable that the reason for petitionerDs dis&issal fro& the
service is not reli4ious in nature. #oupled 3ith this is the act
of the SD1 in furnishin4 N%R# 3ith a cop- of petitionerDs
letter of ter&ination. 1s aptl- stated b- the OS>, this a4ain
is an eloEuent ad&ission b- private respondents that N%R#
has urisdiction over the case. 1side fro& these, SD1
ad&itted in a certi5cation
*+
issued b- its o9cer, Mr. Ibesate,
that petitioner has been its e&plo-ee for t3ent-/ei4ht '*:)
-ears. SD1 even re4istered petitioner 3ith the Social
Securit- S-ste& 'SSS) as its e&plo-ee. 1s a &atter of fact,
the 3or6erDs records of petitioner have been sub&itted b-
private respondents as part of their e8hibits. Fro& all of
these it is clear that 3hen the SD1 ter&inated the services
of petitioner, it 3as &erel- e8ercisin4 its &ana4e&ent
prero4ative to 5re an e&plo-ee 3hich it believes to be un5t
for the ob. 1s such, the State, throu4h the %abor 1rbiter and
the N%R#, has the ri4ht to ta6e co4ni7ance of the case and
to deter&ine 3hether the SD1, as e&plo-er, ri4htfull-
e8ercised its &ana4e&ent prero4ative to dis&iss an
e&plo-ee. This is in consonance 3ith the &andate of the
#onstitution to aAord full protection to labor.
2nder the %abor #ode, the provision 3hich 4overns the
dis&issal of e&plo-ees, is co&prehensive enou4h to include
reli4ious corporations, such as the SD1, in its covera4e.
1rticle *=: of the %abor #ode on post/e&plo-&ent states
that (the provisions of this Title shall appl- to all
establish&ents or underta6in4s, 3hether for pro5t or not.(
Obviousl-, the cited article does not &a6e an- e8ception in
favor of a reli4ious corporation. This is &ade &ore evident
b- the fact that the Rules I&ple&entin4 the %abor #ode,
particularl-, Section $, Rule $, ?oo6 VI on the Ter&ination of
@&plo-&ent and Retire&ent, cate4oricall- includes reli4ious
institutions in the covera4e of the la3, to 3itC
Sec. $. Coverage. I This Rule shall appl- to all
establish&ents and underta6in4s, 3hether operated
for pro5t or not, includin4 educational, &edical,
charitable and reli4ious institutions and
or4ani7ations, in cases of re4ular e&plo-&ent 3ith
the e8ception of the >overn&ent and its political
subdivisions includin4 4overn&ent/o3ned or
controlled corporations.
*B
<ith this clear &andate, the SD1 cannot hide behind the
&antle of protection of the doctrine of separation of church
and state to avoid its responsibilities as an e&plo-er under
the %abor #ode.
Finall-, as correctl- pointed out b- petitioner, private
respondents are estopped fro& raisin4 the issue of lac6 of
urisdiction for the 5rst ti&e on appeal. It is alread- too late
in the da- for private respondents to Euestion the
urisdiction of the N%R# and the %abor 1rbiter since the SD1
had full- participated in the trials and hearin4s of the case
fro& start to 5nish. The #ourt has alread- ruled that the
active participation of a part- a4ainst 3ho& the action 3ar
brou4ht, coupled 3ith his failure to obect to the urisdiction
of the court or Euasi/udicial bod- 3here the action is
pendin4, is tanta&ount to an invocation of that urisdiction
and a 3illin4ness to abide b- the resolution of the case and
3ill bar said part- fro& later on i&pu4nin4 the court or
bod-Ds urisdiction.
*"
Thus, the active participation of private
respondents in the proceedin4s before the %abor 1rbiter and
the N%R# &ooted the Euestion on urisdiction.
The urisdictional Euestion no3 settled, 3e shall no3
proceed to deter&ine 3hether the dis&issal of petitioner
3as valid.
1t the outset, 3e note that as a 4eneral rule, 5ndin4s of fact
of ad&inistrative bodies li6e the N%R# are bindin4 upon this
#ourt. 1 revie3 of such 5ndin4s is usti5ed, ho3ever, in
instances 3hen the 5ndin4s of the N%R# diAer fro& those of
the labor arbiter, as in this case.
*!
<hen the 5ndin4s of
N%R# do not a4ree 3ith those of the %abor 1rbiter, this #ourt
&ust of necessit- revie3 the records to deter&ine 3hich
5ndin4s should be preferred as &ore co&fortable to the
evidentiar- facts.
*=
<e turn no3 to the cru8 of the &atter. In ter&ination cases,
the settled rule is that the burden of provin4 that the
ter&ination 3as for a valid or authori7ed cause rests on the
e&plo-er.
*:
Thus, private respondents &ust not &erel- rel-
on the 3ea6nesses of petitionerDs evidence but &ust stand
on the &erits of their o3n defense.
The issue bein4 the le4alit- of petitionerDs dis&issal, the
sa&e &ust be &easured a4ainst the reEuisites for a valid
dis&issal, na&el-C 'a) the e&plo-ee &ust be aAorded due
process, i.e., he &ust be 4iven an opportunit- to be heard
and to defend hi&self, andK 'b) the dis&issal &ust be for a
valid cause as provided in 1rticle *:* of the %abor
#ode.
*.
<ithout the concurrence of this t3in reEuire&ents,
the ter&ination 3ould, in the e-es of the la3, be ille4al.
+0
?efore the services of an e&plo-ee can be validl-
ter&inated, 1rticle *== 'b) of the %abor #ode and Section *,
Rule LLIII, ?oo6 V of the Rules I&ple&entin4 the %abor #ode
further reEuire the e&plo-er to furnish the e&plo-ee 3ith
t3o '*) 3ritten notices, to 3itC 'a) a 3ritten notice served on
the e&plo-ee specif-in4 the 4round or 4rounds for
ter&ination, and 4ivin4 to said e&plo-ee reasonable
opportunit- 3ithin 3hich to e8plain his sideK and, 'b) a
3ritten notice of ter&ination served on the e&plo-ee
indicatin4 that upon due consideration of all the
circu&stances, 4rounds have been established to ustif- his
ter&ination.
The 5rst notice, 3hich &a- be considered as the proper
char4e, serves to apprise the e&plo-ee of the particular
acts or o&issions for 3hich his dis&issal is sou4ht.
+$
The
second notice on the other hand see6s to infor& the
e&plo-ee of the e&plo-erDs decision to dis&iss hi&.
+*
This
decision, ho3ever, &ust co&e onl- after the e&plo-ee is
4iven a reasonable period fro& receipt of the 5rst notice
3ithin 3hich to ans3er the char4e and a&ple opportunit- to
be heard and defend hi&self 3ith the assistance of a
representative, if he so desires.
++
This is in consonance 3ith
the e8press provision of the la3 on the protection to labor
and the broader dictates of procedural due process.
+B
Non/
co&pliance there3ith is fatal because these reEuire&ents
are conditions sine qua non before dis&issal &a- be validl-
eAected.
+"
Private respondent failed to substantiall- co&pl- 3ith the
above reEuire&ents. <ith re4ard to the 5rst notice, the
letter,
+!
dated $= October $..$, 3hich noti5ed petitioner
and his 3ife to attend the &eetin4 on *$ October $..$,
cannot be construed as the 3ritten char4e reEuired b- la3.
1 perusal of the said letter reveals that it never cate4oricall-
stated the particular acts or o&issions on 3hich petitionerDs
i&pendin4 ter&ination 3as 4rounded. In fact, the letter
never even &entioned that petitioner 3ould be subect to
investi4ation. The letter &erel- &entioned that petitioner
and his 3ife 3ere invited to a &eetin4 3herein 3hat 3ould
be discussed 3ere the alle4ed unre&itted church tithes and
the events that transpired on $! October $..$. Thus,
petitioner 3as surprised to 5nd out that the alle4ed &eetin4
turned out to be an investi4ation. Fro& the tenor of the
letter, it cannot be presu&ed that petitioner 3as actuall- on
the ver4e of dis&issal. The alle4ed 4rounds for the dis&issal
of petitioner fro& the service 3ere onl- revealed to hi&
3hen the actual letter of dis&issal 3as 5nall- issued. For
this reason, it cannot be said that petitioner 3as 4iven
enou4h opportunit- to properl- prepare for his defense.
<hile ad&ittedl-, private respondents co&plied 3ith the
second reEuire&ent, the notice of ter&ination, this does not
cure the initial defect of lac6 of the proper 3ritten char4e
reEuired b- la3.
In the letter of ter&ination,
+=
dated *. October $..$, private
respondents enu&erated the follo3in4 as 4rounds for the
dis&issal of petitioner, na&el-C &isappropriation of
deno&inational funds, 3illful breach of trust, serious
&isconduct, 4ross and habitual ne4lect of duties, and
co&&ission of an oAense a4ainst the person of e&plo-erDs
dul- authori7ed representative. ?reach of trust and
&isappropriation of deno&inational funds refer to the
alle4ed failure of petitioner to re&it to the treasurer of the
Ne4ros Mission tithes, collections and oAerin4s a&ountin4 to
P$",0=:.$0 3hich 3ere collected b- his 3ife, Mrs. Thel&a
1ustria, in the churches under his urisdiction. On the other
hand, serious &isconduct and co&&ission of an oAense
a4ainst the person of the e&plo-erDs dul- authori7ed
representative pertain to the $! October $..$ incident
3herein petitioner alle4edl- co&&itted an act of violence in
the o9ce of Pastor >ideon ?uhat. The 5nal 4round invo6ed
b- private respondents is 4ross and habitual ne4lect of
duties alle4edl- co&&itted b- petitioner.
<e cannot sustain the validit- of dis&issal based on the
4round of breach of trust. Private respondents alle4e that
the- have lost their con5dence in petitioner for his failure,
despite de&ands, to re&it the tithes and oAerin4s
a&ountin4 to P$",0=:.$0, 3hich 3ere collected in his
district. 1 careful stud- of the volu&inous records of the
case reveals that there is si&pl- no basis for the alle4ed loss
of con5dence and breach of trust. Settled is the rule that
under 1rticle *:* 'c) of the %abor #ode, the breach of trust
&ust be 3illful. 1 breach is 3illful if it is done intentionall-,
6no3in4l- and purposel-, 3ithout usti5able e8cuse, as
distin4uished fro& an act done carelessl-, thou4htlessl-,
heedlessl- or inadvertentl-.
+:
It &ust rest on substantial
4rounds and not on the e&plo-erDs arbitrariness, 3hi&s,
caprices or suspicionK other3ise the e&plo-ee 3ould
eternall- re&ain at the &erc- of the e&plo-er.
+.
It should be
4enuine and not si&ulated.
B0
This 4round has never been
intended to aAord an occasion for abuse, because of its
subective nature. The records sho3 that there 3ere onl- si8
'!) instances 3hen petitioner personall- collected and
received fro& the church treasurers the tithes, collections,
and donations for the church.
B$
The steno4raphic notes on
the testi&on- of Nao&i >eniebla, the Ne4ros Mission #hurch
1uditor and a 3itness for private respondents, sho3 that
Pastor 1ustria 3as able to re&it all his collections to the
treasurer of the Ne4ros Mission.
B*
Thou4h private respondents 3ere able to establish that
petitioner collected and received tithes and donations
several ti&es, the- 3ere notable to establish that petitioner
failed to re&it the sa&e to the Ne4ros Mission, and that he
poc6eted the a&ount and used it for his personal purpose.
In fact, as ad&itted b- their o3n 3itness, Nao&i >eniebla,
petitioner re&itted the a&ounts 3hich he collected to the
Ne4ros Mission for 3hich correspondin4 receipts 3ere issued
to hi&. Thus, the alle4ations of private respondents that
petitioner breached their trust have no le4 to stand on.
In a vain atte&pt to support their clai& of breach of trust,
private respondents tr- to pin on petitioner the alle4ed non/
re&ittance of the tithes collected b- his 3ife. This ar4u&ent
deserves little consideration. First of all, as proven b-
convincin4 and substantial evidence consistin4 of the
testi&onies of the 3itnesses for private respondents 3ho
are church treasurers, it 3as Mrs. Thel&a 1ustria 3ho
actuall- collected the tithes and donations fro& the&, and,
3ho failed to re&it the sa&e to the treasurer of the Ne4ros
Mission. The testi&on- of these church treasurers 3ere
corroborated and con5r&ed b- Ms. >eniebla and Mr.
Ibesate, o9cers of the SD1. ;ence, in the absence of
conspirac- and collusion, 3hich private respondents failed
to de&onstrate, bet3een petitioner and his 3ife, petitioner
cannot be &ade accountable for the alle4ed infraction
co&&itted b- his 3ife. 1fter all, the- still have separate and
distinct personalities. For this reason, the %abor 1rbiter
found it di9cult to see the basis for the alle4ed loss of
con5dence and breach of trust. The #ourt does not 5nd an-
co4ent reason, therefore, to di4ress fro& the 5ndin4s of the
%abor 1rbiter 3hich is full- supported b- the evidence on
record.
<ith respect to the 4rounds of serious &isconduct and
co&&ission of an oAense a4ainst the person of the
e&plo-erDs dul- authori7ed representative, 3e 5nd the sa&e
un&eritorious and, as such, do not 3arrant petitionerDs
dis&issal fro& the service.
Misconduct has been de5ned as i&proper or 3ron4 conduct.
It is the trans4ression of so&e established and de5nite rule
of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of dut-, 3illful in
character, and i&plies 3ron4ful intent and not &ere error in
ud4&ent.
B+
For &isconduct to be considered serious it &ust
be of such 4rave and a44ravated character and not &erel-
trivial or uni&portant.
BB
?ased on this standard, 3e believe
that the act of petitioner in ban4in4 the attachF case on the
table, thro3in4 the telephone and scatterin4 the boo6s in
the o9ce of Pastor ?uhat, althou4h i&proper, cannot be
considered as 4rave enou4h to be considered as serious
&isconduct. 1fter all, as correctl- observed b- the %abor
1rbiter, thou4h petitioner co&&itted da&a4e to propert-,
he did not ph-sicall- assault Pastor ?uhat or an- other
pastor present durin4 the incident of $! October $..$. In
fact, the alle4ed oAense co&&itted upon the person of the
e&plo-erDs representatives 3as never reall- established or
proven b- private respondents. ;ence, there is no basis for
the alle4ation that petitionerDs act constituted serious
&isconduct or that the sa&e 3as an oAense a4ainst the
person of the e&plo-erDs dul- authori7ed representative. 1s
such, the cited actuation of petitioner does not ustif- the
ulti&ate penalt- of dis&issal fro& e&plo-&ent. <hile the
#onstitution does condone 3ron4doin4 b- the e&plo-ee, it
nevertheless ur4es a &oderation of the sanctions that &a-
be applied to hi& in li4ht of the &an- disadvanta4es that
3ei4h heavil- on hi& li6e an albatross on his nec6.
B"
<here
a penalt- less punitive 3ould su9ce, 3hatever &issteps
&a- have been co&&itted b- the 3or6er ou4ht not be
visited 3ith a conseEuence so severe such as dis&issal fro&
e&plo-&ent.
B!
For the fore4oin4 reasons, 3e believe that
the &inor infraction co&&itted b- petitioner does not &erit
the ulti&ate penalt- of dis&issal.
The 5nal 4round alle4ed b- private respondents in
ter&inatin4 petitioner, 4ross and habitual ne4lect of duties,
does not reEuire an e8haustive discussion. Su9ce it to sa-
that all private respondents had 3ere alle4ations but not
proof. 1side fro& &erel- citin4 the said 4round, private
respondents failed to prove culpabilit- on the part of
petitioner. In fact, the evidence on record sho3s other3ise.
PetitionerDs rise fro& the ran6s disclose that he 3as actuall-
a hard/3or6er. Private respondentsD evidence,
B=
3hich
consisted of petitionerDs <or6erDs Reports, revealed ho3
petitioner travelled to diAerent churches to attend to the
faithful under his care. Indeed, he labored hard for the SD1,
but, in return, he 3as re3arded 3ith a dis&issal fro& the
service for a non/e8istent cause.
In vie3 of the fore4oin4, 3e sustain the 5ndin4 of the %abor
1rbiter that petitioner 3as ter&inated fro& service 3ithout
ust or la3ful cause. ;avin4 been ille4all- dis&issed,
petitioner is entitled to reinstate&ent to his for&er position
3ithout loss of seniorit- ri4ht
B:
and the pa-&ent of full
bac63a4es 3ithout an- deduction correspondin4 to the
period fro& his ille4al dis&issal up to actual reinstate&ent.
B!
<;@R@FOR@, the petition for certiorari is >R1NT@D. The
challen4ed Resolution of public respondent National %abor
Relations #o&&ission, rendered on *+ ,anuar- $..!, is
N2%%IFI@D and S@T 1SID@. The Decision of the %abor 1rbiter,
dated $" Februar- $..+, is R@INST1T@D and hereb-
1FFIRM@D.1wphi1.nt
SO ORD@R@D.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Pardo and Ynares!antiago, JJ., concur.