Myline Cordial

Alfredo Long and Felix Almeria vs. Lydia Basa, Anthony Sayheeliam and Yao Chek 
G.R. Nos. 134963-64, September 27, 2001
366 SCRA 113
418 Phil. 375

FACTS:
The Church in Quezon City (Church Assembly Hall), Incorporated is a religious group organized as “an entity of the brotherhood in Christ”. It was registered in 1973 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.
The procedure for the expulsion of an erring or dissident member is prescribed in Article VII (paragraph 4) of the Church Assembly Hall 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 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 b(y) 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 Assembly Hall, including petitioners herein, exhibited “conduct which was dishonorable, improper and injurious to the character and interest of the organization 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 Assembly Hall.

The Board of Directors exhorted and warned the erring members during Sunday worship gatherings, in a small group gatherings and even one-on-one personal talk with the members since 1988 but the repeated admonitions were ignored by petitioners.

During it’s regular meeting held for the purpose of reviewing and updating the membership list of the Church, the name of certain members including the petitioners were removed from the list.

ISSUE:
Was the expulsion of certain members on purely spiritual or religious grounds since they refused to follow its teachings and doctrines by the Board of Directors of a religious corporation a contravention to the laws?

RULING:
No. Applicable in this case is Section 91 of the Corporation Code which provides that membership shall be terminated in the manner and for the causes provided in the articles of incorporation or the by-laws. Termination of membership shall have the effect of extinguishing all rights of a member in the corporation or in its property, unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation or the by-laws. The By-laws of the Church Assembly, which the members adhered to does not require the Board of Directors to give prior notice to the erring or dissident members in cases of expulsion. Paragraph 4 of Article VII of the By-laws provides for the procedure for expulsion which only requires that before a member can be expelled or removed from the membership of the CHURCH are: (a) the Board of Directors has been notified that a member has failed to observe any regulations and By-laws of the CHURCH, or the conduct of any member has been dishonorable or improper or otherwise injurious to the character and interest of the CHURCH, and (b) a resolution is passed by the Board expelling the member concerned, without assigning any reason therefor.

The Court also held that the expulsion was not tainted with any arbitrary treatment from the members of the Board of Directors who, since 1988 up to August 30, 1993, or approximately five (5) years, have patiently exhorted and warned the dissident members. This long period of time is more than adequate an opportunity for the erring members and their followers to contemplate upon their covenant with the CHURCH on their duty to protect and promote its Principles of Faith and not to violate them. It is a well-settled principle in law that what due process contemplates is freedom from arbitrariness; what it requires is fairness and justice; substance, rather than the form, being paramount. What it prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but the absolute absence thereof. A formal or trial type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential.

NOTES:

Remedial Law; Judgments
The orderly administration of justice requires that the judgments/resolutions of a court or quasi-judicial body must reach a point of finality set by the law, rules and regulations. The noble purpose is to write finis to disputes once and for all. This is a fundamental principle in our justice system, without which there would be no end to litigations. Utmost respect and adherence to this principle must always be maintained by those who wield the power of adjudication. Any act which violates such principle must immediately be struck down.”

Let it not be said that the denial of the present petitions, even on this ground alone, is a mere technicality. In the aforecited case of Fortich vs. Corona, we held that once a case had been resolved with finality, vested rights were acquired by the winning party. Consequently, the rule on finality of decisions, orders or resolutions of a judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative body is “not a question of technicality but of substance and merit,” the underlying consideration therefor being the protection of the substantive rights of the winning party.

Full Text: Long vs. Basa G.R. Nos. 134963-64, September 27, 2001