Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
Can courts resolve a conflict in the house of God?
The 1987 Constitution adheres to the principle of the separation of the Church and the State. Thus, Section 6, Article II provides that “The Separation of the Church and State shall be inviolable.”
A counterpart verse in Mark 12:16 of the Bible states “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.”
We are all aware that religious corporations are unique because they have their own rules, regulations, doctrines, and teachings which can never be found in ordinary stock or non-stock corporations. When stockholders of a stock corporation or members of a non-stock corporation have an intra-corporate dispute, filing a case in court is always an available option if the same cannot be resolved by following the by-laws of the corporation.
But what about if a member of a religious corporation is expelled from his church on purely spiritual or religious grounds, can he question the legality of his expulsion in court? This was answered in the case of Alfredo Long and Felix Almeria v. Lydia Basa, et.al., G.R. Nos. 134963-64. September 27, 2001.
In 1973, a religious group known as “The Church In Quezon City (Church Assembly Hall), Incorporated” (“CHURCH” for brevity), located at 140 Talayan St., Talayan Village, Quezon City, was organized as “an entity of the brotherhood in Christ.” It was registered in the same year with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a non-stock, non-profit religious corporation for the administration of its temporalities or the management of its properties.
As a “brotherhood in Christ,” the CHURCH embraced the Principles of Faith that “every member or officer” thereof shall, without mental reservation, adhere strictly to the doctrine, teaching and faith being observed by the (CHURCH) in proclaiming the Gospel of Christ, to save lost souls, to lead men in worshipping the true God, in accordance with the Holy Bible.
Zealous in upholding and guarding their Christian faith, and to ensure unity and uninterrupted exercise of their religious belief, the members of the CHURCH vested upon the Board of Directors the absolute power “(to preserve and protect their faith” and to admit and expel a member of the CHURCH.
Admission for membership in the CHURCH is so exacting. Only “persons zealous of the Gospel, faithful in Church work and of sound knowledge of the Truth, as the Board of Directors shall admit to membership, shall be members of the (CHURCH).”
The procedure for the expulsion of an erring or dissident member is prescribed in Article VII (paragraph 4) of the CHURCH By-laws, which provides that “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 (CHURCH) 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 therefor expel such member from such Institution and he shall then forfeit his interest, rights and privileges in the Institution.”
As early as 1988, the Board of Directors observed that certain members of the CHURCH, including petitioners herein, exhibited “conduct which was dishonorable, improper and injurious to the character and interest of the (CHURCH)” by “introducing (to the members) doctrines and teachings which were not based on the Holy Bible” and the Principles of Faith embraced by the CHURCH.
Confronted with this situation, the respondents, as members of the Board of Directors, and some responsible members of the CHURCH, advised the petitioners “to correct their ways” and reminded them “that under the By-laws, this organization is only for worshipping the true God, not to worship Buddha or men.” The respondents also warned them that if they persist in their highly improper conduct, they will be dropped from the membership of the CHURCH. These exhortations and warnings to the erring members were made during Sunday worship gatherings, “in small group meetings and even one-on-one personal talk with them.” Since 1988, these warnings were announced by the members of the Board “sometimes once a week (when they) meet together.” (to be continued)