Domingo v. Castro

[SEC-SICD * CASE NO. 4217. July 31, 1992.] REV. REYNALDO C. DOMINGO, ET AL. , petitioners , vs . BISHOP GEORGE F. CASTRO ET AL. , respondents . O R D E R Before this Commission for resolution is the motion to dismiss based on the grounds pleaded as special and affirmative defenses in the answer filed by respondents Bishop George F. Castro, et al., through counsel, seeking the dismissal of the instant case on the grounds that (1) the petitioners have no legal capacity to sue, (2) petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies, (3) petitioners state no cause of action, and (4) the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period. In support thereof, said respondents cited the provisions of Section 5 of PD 902-A as amended, to point out that there is no intra-corporate relations existing between the parties by reason of the expulsion of the petitioners as members of the church, who, as non-members, have no personality to file instant case. Respondents also contended that the Commission can only acquire jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes involving members of the same organization. Respondents also accused the petitioners of not exhausting administrative remedies before filing the instant case before the commission. The alleged failure of the petition to state a cause of action need not be discussed further as it premised on the respondents' argument that petitioners are non-members of the church by reason of their expulsion. As to the filing of the instant petition beyond the reglementary period, respondents contended that election protests should be filed within fifteen (15)-days from the date of election and if filed beyond the period, Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this case. Counsel for respondents Rev. Jesus Camacho, et al., adopted the oral arguments of counsel for respondents Bishop George F. Castro, et al. In addition, he argued that the parties who were impleaded in the petition are not the real parties in interest, the issues raised being principally election issues, and the people who should be impleaded as respondents are the people who handled the election and not his clients whose participation in the election was only to vote. The above special and affirmative defenses were denied by the petitioners in their oral arguments. After a careful evaluation of the allegations of the contending parties in their pleadings and the documents attached thereto, as well as their oral arguments, it would appear from the petition that prior to the election held during the 1992 General Conference on February 25, 1992, a complaint was filed against the petitioners with the Committee on Election charging them with sedition or inciting to sedition, sowing dissension within church and others. The complainants in the said complaint sought to disqualify the petitioners and some others as candidates for the Supreme Consistory of Elders, the equivalent of Board of Directors. Instead of disqualifying them as candidates, the petitioners were allowed to participate in the elections and were voted to the Supreme Consistory of Elders. Obviously because of the charges against them, the petitioners were not proclaimed as elected and were also disqualified to be candidates for the election of the General Superintendent, General Secretary, General Evangelist and General Treasurer by the Committee on elections. In protest of this ruling, the petitioners left the Conference Hall. For leading a walkout during the elections and for other reasons, petitioners were expelled from the church pursuant to "Resolusyon Blg. KH-92-16". However, the General Conference itself decided to suspend the implementation of the said resolution to give petitioners a chance to ponder on the implication of expulsion. After the lapse of ten (10) days, petitioners failed or opted not to return. Hence, the expulsion and the removal of their names from list of members and employees of the church. Annex "F" of the Petition reads: Mahal na Kamanggawa: Nais naming ipabatid sa inyong pamumuno sa pag-aklas (walkout) ng ilang mga manggagawa noong 25 Pebrero 1992 habang may halalan sa panahon ng Komperensya Heneral at sa iba pang mga kadahilanan, kayo ay isa sa pinagpasiyahang itiwalag sa Iglesia ayon sa Resolusyon Blg. KH-92-16 (kalakip nito). "Ngunit dahil sa pagnanasa na rin ng Komperensya na mabigyan kayo ng pagkakataon na isipin o isaalang-alang ang implikasyon ng inyong pag-aklas (walkout) ay minarapat suspindihin muna ang implementasyon ng naturang resolusyon upang bigyan kayo ng pagkakataon na sundin ang ilang mga kondisyon na nasasaad Resolusyon Blg. KH-92-17, kung inyong mamarapatin, upang huwag nang ituloy ang inyong pagkakatiwalag. Dahil dito, ipinakikiusap ko sa inyo na kung nais ninyong mawalang bisa ang pagkakatiwalag ninyo, ay ipabatid ninyo sa amin sa loob ng sampung (10) araw mula sa pagkatanggap ninyo ng patalastas na ito, ang inyong pagsang-ayon sa mga naturang kondisyones sa Resolusyon Blg. KH-92-17. Ang hindi ninyo pagsagot sa kahilingang ito sa loob ng nabanggit na sampung (10) araw ay mangangahulugan na ang Resolusyon Blg. KH-92-16 na nagtiwalag sa inyo ay magkakabisa na. Pinagtibay din ng Komperensya Heneral na ang Superintendente Heneral at Sekretaryo Heneral ang magpapatupad ng mga resolusyong nabanggit sa pagsubaybay ng Kataastaasang Konsistoryo. Sa ikakaayos ng pagsasakatuparan ng pananatili ninyo sa Iglesia, ay mangyaring makipagkita kayo sa amin upang mapag-usapan ang mga bagay-bagay ukol dito. Alang-alang sa kapayapaan nating lahat ay makapagpatuloy nawa tayo ng magkakasama sa paglilingkod sa Panginoong Hesu-Kristo sa sinapupunan ng IEMELIF. Inyo sa Paglilingkod. SGD. SGD. REB. ARCADIO G. CABILDO OBISPO GEORGE F. CASTRO Sekretaryo Heneral Superindente Heneral Clearly, Annex "F" quoted above is not in itself a letter of expulsion but merely a notice of expulsion, giving chances to the respondents to return to the church. Instead of discussing the implication of a walkout and other matters, and to avoid expulsion "upang huwag nang ituloy ang inyong pagkakatiwalag", (par. 1, Annex "F") petitioners rejected the offer of reconciliation and opted to file the instant case. Hence, the expulsion and the removal of petitioners' name from the list of members of the church. The expulsion appears to be a valid exercise of the authority and prerogative of the General Conference on the absence of any provisions in the By-Laws. the judicial systems invoked by the petitioners. (Annex "B") found in the "Alituntunin" (By-laws). Annex "A" does not appear to have been approved by the Commission. The alleged non-exhaustion of intra-corporate remedies need not be discussed as the petitioners themselves narrated in their petition certain negotiations with the respondents. Besides, the By-laws of the church does not provide for exhaustion of intra-corporation remedies before a member seeks remedy from this Commission. On the alleged filing of this case beyond the reglementary period of fifteen (15) days in election cases, the Summary Procedure in Election Cases, particularly Section 3 thereof, provides: "SECTION 3. Upon the filing of the complaint or petition the Hearing Officer from a consideration of the allegations thereof: (a) may dismiss the complaint outright due to: 1. failure to file the case within fifteen (15) days from the date of the election of the By-laws do not provide for, procedure for resolution. . . ." Admitting that the case was filed beyond the reglementary period of fifteen (15) days from election, petitioners invoked their understanding of the rules that it does not apply to the election of officers. It is the submission of the petitioners that it was not the intention of this Honorable Commission to include the election of Officers within the coverage of the Summary Rules of Procedure in Election Cases. Petitioners further argued that because this Hearing Officer has allowed the filing of notices for extension, the filing of motion for postponement and the filing of an unverified answer are clear indications that this Hearing Officer has already drawn a conclusion that this case is not covered by the Summary Procedure. It was further argued by the petitioners that this Hearing Officer has not dismissed this case motu proprio i s a clear indication that this petition is not covered by the Summary Rules of Procedure in Election Cases. Separating the election of directors on one hand and the officers on the other hand with the intention of excluding the elections of officers from the ambit of the Summary Procedure in Election cases finds no valid factual and legal basis in the instant case. As correctly pointed out by counsel for the respondents-holdovers, the election of directors and officers is one whole election process as provided in the By-laws of the church which provides for the election not only of the Board of Directors but also of the officers by the whole membership. The fact that petitioners are questioning the issues with respect to election, as well as the election of officers itself, does not remove the case within the coverage of Summary Procedure in Election Cases. This Hearing Officer does not agree with the theory of the petitioners that this case ceased to be covered by the Summary Procedure in Election Cases when the Hearing Officer did not dismiss the case outright. To subscribe to such a theory would render the said summary procedure meaningless and useless. Besides, the outright dismissal of an election case filed with this Commission beyond the fifteen (15)-day period from the date of election is not a mandatory requirement as the rules so provide. The fact that the instant case has not been dismissed outright does not necessarily mean that the Hearing Officer is waiving his prerogative to dismiss the case at any stage of the proceedings. Neither does it divest the proceedings of the summary character if the parties were allowed to present their respective evidence and the case resolved in pursuance therewith. While it is true, as alleged by the petitioners that the Summary Rules of Procedure in Election Cases, shall apply to disputes involving the election of directors or trustees in stock or non-stock corporations, the truth of the matter is that the petitioners, despite their denial, are also questioning the non-proclamation of their election as members of the Supreme Consistory of Elders, the corporation's Board of Trustee/Directors. Among the reliefs sought by the petitioners to show that it is not only the election of officers they are questioning but also the election of the Board of Directors when they were not proclaimed as elected members of the Supreme Consistory of Elders which led to their disqualification from being candidates and getting elected to the position of General Superintendent, General Secretary, General Evangelist and General Treasurer p. 13, 4(a) of the Petition). In the light of the foregoing, this Hearing Officer finds the instant petition an election case filed beyond the reglementary period pursuant to the Summary Procedure in Election Cases. The expulsion of the petitioners from their membership resulting in their removal from the list of members and employees of the church is a valid exercise of its authority and prerogative under the church's By-laws. As non-members, petitioners have no legal capacity to sue. WHEREFORE, this motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the instant petition should be, as it is hereby considered DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) MANUEL P. PEREA Hearing Officer