Austria v.

NLRC
[G.R. No. 124382. August 16, 1999]
Ponente: Kapunan, J.
FACTS:
Petitioner had worked with the private respondent Seventh Day Adventists (SDA) for
28 years before he was terminated. Prior to said termination, petitioner was asked to
admit accountability for the church offerings collected by his wife in the amount of
P15,078.10. Petitioner refused since it was private respondents Pastor Buhat and Eufronio
Ibesate who authorized his wife to collect. Thereafter petitioner requested Pastor Buhat
to convene the Executive Committee to settle the dispute between him and Pastor
Rodrigo, but the latter denied the same, and heated arguments between the two ensued
until petitioner banged the attach case of Pastor Buhat on the table, scattered the books
and threw the phone. Later, an Executive Committee meeting was held where the nonremittance of church collections and the events that transpired were discussed.
Subsequently, petitioner received a letter of dismissal citing therein grounds for the
termination of his services. Petitioner then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and a
decision was rendered in his favor. The SDA appealed the same to the NLRC and after
much ado, the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the case
involved an ecclessiastical affair to which the State cannot interfere.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the termination of the services of petitioner is an ecclesiastical affair, and,
as such, involves the separation of church and state.
HELD:
The case at bar did not concern a purely religious affair as to bar the State from
taking cognizance thereof. What is involved here is the relationship of the church as an
employer and the minister as an employee. There was no compliance of the requirement
that there should be a written notice specifying the grounds for termination and giving the
employee reasonable opportunity to explain his side. Here, petitioner was not given
enough opportunity to properly prepare for his defense. At any rate, the validity of the
dismissal cannot be sustained. There was no basis for the loss of confidence and breach
of trust as it was petitioners wife who collected the money and failed to remit the
same. On the ground of serious misconduct and commission of an offense against the
person of the employers duly authorized representative, the same was unmeritorious as
petitioners actuations cannot be considered grave enough to be considered as serious
misconduct to merit the ultimate penalty of dismissal. Then also, there was no proof that

petitioner committed gross and habitual neglect of duties. Hence, since petitioner was
illegally dismissed, he is entitled to reinstatement with full backwages.