13. Re: Letter Of Tony Q.

VAlenciano, Holding Of Religious Rituals At jurisdictional provisions of Article 217 to claims for damages filed by
The Hall Of Justice Building In Quezon City (Kara) employees, it also held that by the designating clause "arising from the
March 7, 2017 | Mendoza, J. | Separation of Church and State employer-employee relations," Article 217 should apply with equal force to
the claim of an employer for actual damages against its dismissed
PETITIONER: employee, where the basis for the claim arises from or is necessarily
RESPONDENT: connected with the fact of termination, and should be entered as a
counterclaim in the illegal dismissal case.
SUMMARY: Petitioner’s terminated respondent’s employment on the
ground that she granted herself unwarranted ECOLA which willfully FACTS:
breached the trust reposed in her by petitioners as Accounting Supervisor. 1. Valenciano reported that the basement of the Hall of Justice of
Respondent filed before the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal dismissal
Quezon City (QC) had been converted into a Roman Catholic
against petitioners. LA ruled in favor of respondent. NLRC overturned the
LA. CA modified NLRC’s ruling and proceeded to award respondent with Chapel, complete with offertory table, images of Catholic religious
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, but denied her backwages and icons, a canopy, an electric organ, and a projector. He believed that
damages. One of the reliefs petitioner seek from this Court is to order such practice violated the constitutional provision on the separation
respondent to pay [petitioners] the total amount of Php. 64,173.83 plus of Church and State and the constitutional prohibition against the
interest, which is her outstanding cash advances (this was discovered appropriation of public money or property for the benefit of a sect,
during the administrative proceeding). WON LA has jurisdiction over a church, denomination, or any other system of religion.
claim of an employer for actual damages against its dismissed employee? –
2. Valenciano further averred that the holding of masses at the
YES. In Bahez v. Valdevilla, the Court recognized that the jurisdiction of
Labor Arbiters and the NLRC in Article 217 of the Labor Code, as amended, basement of the QC Hall of Justice showed that it tended to favor
is comprehensive enough to include claims for all forms of damages "arising Catholic litigants; that the rehearsals of the choir caused great
from the employer-employee relations." Whereas the Court in a number of disturbance to other employees; that the public could no longer use
occasions had applied the jurisdictional provisions of Article 217 to claims the basement as resting place; that the employees and litigants of
for damages filed by employees, it also held that by the designating clause the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), Branches 82 and 83 of the
"arising from the employer-employee relations," Article 217 should apply Regional Trial Court (RTC), Legal Library, Philippine Mediation
with equal force to the claim of an employer for actual damages against
Center, and Records Section of the Office of the Clerk of
its dismissed employee, where the basis for the claim arises from or is
necessarily connected with the fact of termination, and should be entered Court (OCC) could not attend to their personal necessities such as
as a counterclaim in the illegal dismissal case. However, in this case, going to the lavatories because they could not traverse the
petitioners' counterclaim for payment of respondent's outstanding cash basement between 12:00 o'clock noontime and 1: 15 o'clock in the
advances, although undoubtedly arising from employer-employee afternoon; that the court employees became hostile toward each
relations between petitioners and respondent, did not arise from or was other as they vied for the right to read the epistle; and that the
not necessarily connected with the fact of respondent's termination. Such water supply in the entire building was cut off during the mass
charge was not covered by the notices and hearing petitioners accorded
because the generator was turned off to ensure silence.
respondent prior to the latter's dismissal and for the Court to rule upon the
same in this case would be in violation of respondent's right to due process. 3. Judge Maceren clarified that the basement of the QC Hall of
Justice was known as the prayer corner. He opined that the use of
DOCTRINE: Whereas the Court in a number of occasions had applied the the said area for holding masses did not violate the constitutional
prohibition against the use of public property for religious
 purposes because the religious character of such use was merely Catholics had better chances of obtaining favorable resolutions
incidental to a temporary use. from the court.
4. Judge Sagun, Jr. informed the Court that his office had already 7. Accordingly, Judge Lutero recommended that the holding of
implemented measures to address Valenciano's complaints. He masses at the basement of the QC Hall of Justice be allowed to
reported that masses were shortened to a little over thirty (30) continue considering that it was not inimical to the interests of the
minutes; that it was only during special holy days of obligation court employees and the public.
when the celebration of mass went beyond one (1) o'clock in the
afternoon; that the pathways leading to the lavatories were open ISSUE:
and could be used without obstruction; that there was never an WHETHER THE HOLDING OF MASSES AT THE BASEMENT
instance where the actions of court personnel, who were vying to OF THE QUEZON CITY HALL OF JUSTICE VIOLATES THE
read the epistle during mass, caused back-biting and irritation CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF
among themselves; that the water generator had been broken CHURCH AND STATE AS WELL AS THE
beyond repair and decommissioned since December 2009; and that CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST
the court employees prepared for the mass before the day officially APPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC MONEY OR PROPERTY FOR
started, so that the performance of their official duties in court was THE BENEFIT OF ANY SECT, CHURCH, DENOMINATION,
not hampered. SECTARIAN INSTITUTION, OR SYSTEM OF RELIGION. –
5. Judge Lutero reported that Catholic masses were being held only No.
during lunch breaks and did not disturb court proceedings; that the
basement of the QC Hall of Justice could still be used as waiting RATIO:
The Holding of Religious Rituals in the Halls of Justice does not Amount to
area for the public; that court personnel and the public were never
a Union of Church and State
physically prevented from reaching the lavatories during mass as 1. As earlier stated, Valenciano is against the holding of religious
there was a clear path from the public offices leading to the rituals in the halls of justice on the ground that it violates the
comfort rooms; that water service interruptions were caused by constitutional provision on the separation of Church and State and
maintenance problems and not because the water pump was being the constitutional prohibition against the appropriation of public
shut off during mass; and that the elevators could not be used money or property for the benefit of a sect, church, denomination,
during mass because elevator attendants took their lunch break or any other system of religion. Indeed, Section 6, Article II of the
from twelve (12) o'clock to one (1) o'clock in the afternoon. 1987 Constitution provides:
6. Judge Lutero opined that it is not the conduct of masses in public
2. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.17
places which the Constitution prohibited, but the passage of laws
3. The Court once pronounced that "our history, not to speak of the
or the use of public funds for the purpose of establishing a religion
history of mankind, has taught us that the union of church and state
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. She conveyed the fact that
is prejudicial to both, for occasions might arise when the state will
no law or rule had been passed and that no public funds had been
use the church, and the church the state, as a weapon in the
appropriated or used to support the celebration of masses. She
furtherance of their respective ends and aims."
added that the holding of Catholic masses did not mean that
4. This, notwithstanding, the State still recognizes the inherent right are allowed to worship their Allah even during office hours inside
of the people to have some form of belief system, whether such their own offices. The Seventh Day Adventists are exempted from
may be belief in a Supreme Being, a certain way of life, or even an rendering Saturday duty because their religion prohibits them from
outright rejection of religion. Our very own Constitution working on a Saturday. Even Christians have been allowed to
recognizes the heterogeneity and religiosity of our people conduct their own bible studies in their own offices. All these have
5. In Aglipay v. Ruiz (Aglipay), the Court acknowledged how religion been allowed in respect of the workers' right to the free exercise of
could serve as a motivating force behind each person's actions their religion. xxx"
6. Thus, the right to believe or not to believe has again been 12. Clearly, allowing the citizens to practice their religion is not
enshrined in Section 5, Article III of the 1987 Constitution equivalent to a fusion of Church and State.
7. Freedom of religion was accorded preferred status by the framers No Compelling State Interest
of our fundamental law. And this Court has consistently affirmed 13. Religious freedom, however, is not absolute. It cannot have its way
this preferred status, well aware that it is "designed to protect the if there is a compelling state interest. To successfully invoke
broadest possible liberty of conscience, to allow each man to compelling state interest, it must be demonstrated that the masses
believe as his conscience directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live in the QC Hall of Justice unduly disrupt the delivery of public
as he believes he ought to live, consistent with the liberty of others services or affect the judges and employees in the performance of
and with the common good." their official functions.
8. "The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold 14. As reported by the Executive Judges of Quezon City, the masses
aspect - freedom to believe and freedom to act on one's beliefs. were being conducted only during noon breaks and were not
The first is absolute as long as the belief is confined within the disruptive of public services. The court proceedings were not being
realm of thought. The second is subject to regulation where the distracted or interrupted and that the performance of the judiciary
belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare." employees were not being adversely affected. Moreover, no Civil
9. Allowing religion to flourish is not contrary to the principle of Service rules were being violated. As there has been no detrimental
separation of Church and State. In fact, these two principles are in effect on the public service or prejudice to the State, there is
perfect harmony with each other. simply no state interest compelling enough to prohibit the exercise
10. The State is aware of the existence of religious movements whose of religious freedom in the halls of justice.
members believe in the divinity of Jose Rizal. Yet, it does not 15. In fact, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) was more lenient or
implement measures to suppress the said religious sects. Such tolerant. On November 13, 1981, the CSC came out with
inaction or indifference on the part of the State gives meaning to Resolution No. 81-1277, which provided, among others, that
the separation of Church and State, and at the same time, "during Friday, the Muslim pray day, Muslims are excused from
recognizes the religious freedom of the members of these sects to work from 10:00 o'clock in the morning to 2:00 o'clock in the
worship their own Supreme Being. afternoon." The Court struck this down as not sanctioned by the
11. As pointed out by Judge Lutero, "the Roman Catholics express law.
their worship through the holy mass and to stop these would be Accommodation, Not Establishment of Religion
tantamount to repressing the right to the free exercise of their 16. In order to give life to the constitutional right of freedom of
religion. Our Muslim brethren, who are government employees, religion, the State adopts a policy of
 accommodation. Accommodation is a recognition of the reality state cannot punish a person for entertaining or professing religious
that some governmental measures may not be imposed on a certain beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance; that
portion of the population for the reason that these measures are no tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any
contrary to their religious beliefs. As long as it can be shown that religious activity or institution whatever they may be called or
the exercise of the right does not impair the public welfare, the whatever form they may adopt or teach or practice religion; that
attempt of the State to regulate or prohibit such right would be an the state cannot openly or secretly participate in the affairs of any
unconstitutional encroachment. religious organization or group and vice versa. 36 Its minimal sense
17. Further, several laws have been enacted to accommodate religion. is that the state cannot establish or sponsor an official religion.37
The Revised Administrative Code of 1987 has declared Maundy 20. In the same breath that the establishment clause restricts what the
Thursday, Good Friday, and Christmas Day as regular holidays. government can do with religion, it also limits what religious sects
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9177 proclaimed the FIRST Day can or cannot do. They can neither cause the government to adopt
of Shawwal, the tenth month of the Islamic Calendar, a national their particular doctrines as policy for everyone, nor can they cause
holiday for the observance of Eidul Fitr (the end of Ramadan). the government to restrict other groups. To do so, in simple terms,
R.A. No. 9849 declared the tenth day of Zhu/ Hijja, the twelfth would cause the State to adhere to a particular religion and, thus,
month of the Islamic Calendar, a national holiday for the establish a state religion
observance of Eidul Adha. Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1083, 21. Establishment entails a positive action on the part of the State.
otherwise known as the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Accommodation, on the other hand, is passive. In the former, the
Philippines, expressly allows a Filipino Muslim to have more than State becomes involved through the use of government resources
one (1) wife and exempts him from the crime of bigamy with the primary intention of setting up a state religion. In the
punishable under Revised Penal Code (RPC). The same Code latter, the State, without being entangled, merely gives
allows Muslims to have divorce consideration to its citizens who want to freely exercise their
Non-Establishment Clause religion.
18. On the opposite side of the spectrum is the constitutional mandate 22. Guided by the foregoing, it is our considered view that the holding
that "no law shall be made respecting an establishment of of Catholic masses at the basement of the QC Hall of Justice is not
religion," otherwise known as the non-establishment clause. a case of establishment, but merely accommodation. First, there is
Indeed, there is a thin line between accommodation and no law, ordinance or circular issued by any duly constitutive
establishment, which makes it even more imperative to understand authorities expressly mandating that judiciary employees attend the
each of these concepts by placing them in the Filipino society's Catholic masses at the basement. Second, when judiciary
perspective. employees attend the masses to profess their faith, it is at their own
19. The non-establishment clause reinforces the wall of separation initiative as they are there on their own free will and volition,
between Church and State. It simply means that the State cannot without any coercion from the judges or administrative
set up a Church; nor pass laws which aid one religion, aid all officers. Third, no government funds are being spent because the
religion, or prefer one religion over another nor force nor influence lightings and airconditioning continue to be operational even if
a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or there are no religious rituals there. Fourth, the basement has
force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion; that the neither been converted into a Roman Catholic chapel nor has it
 been permanently appropriated for the exclusive use of its latter may have benefited from the money he received is of no
faithful. Fifth, the allowance of the masses has not prejudiced moment, for the purpose of the payment of public funds is merely
other religions. to compensate the priest for services rendered and for which other
No appropriation of Public Money or Property persons, who will perform the same services will also be
23. Section 29 (2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides, "No compensated in the same manner.
public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or 27. Establishment Clause, which is as clear as daylight in stating that
employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of what is proscribed is the passage of any law which tends to
any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of establish a religion, not merely to accommodate the free exercise
religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious thereof.
teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, 28. The Constitution even grants tax exemption to properties actually,
minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any directly and exclusively devoted to religious purposes. 45 Certainly,
penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium." this benefits the religious sects for a portion of what could have
24. What is prohibited is the use of public money or property for the been collected for the benefit of the public is surrendered in their
sole purpose of benefiting or supporting any church. The favor.
prohibition contemplates a scenario where the appropriation is 29. Here, the basement of the QC Hall of Justice is not appropriated,
primarily intended for the furtherance of a particular church. applied or employed for the sole purpose of supporting the Roman
25. It has also been held that the aforecited constitutional provision Catholics.
"does not inhibit the use of public property for religious purposes 30. Further, it has not been converted into a Roman Catholic chapel for
when the religious character of such use is merely incidental to a the exclusive use of its faithful contrary to the claim of Valenciana.
temporary use which is available indiscriminately to the public in Judge
general." Hence, a public street may be used for a religious 31. Maceren reported that the basement is also being used as a public
procession even as it is available for a civic parade, in the same waiting area for most of the day and a meeting place for different
way that a public plaza is not barred to a religious rally if it may employee organizations. The use of the area for holding masses is
also be used for a political assemblage limited to lunch break period from twelve (12) o'clock to one (1)
26. In relation thereto, the phrase "directly or indirectly" refers to the o'clock in the afternoon. Further, Judge Sagun, Jr. related that
manner of appropriation of public money or property, not as to masses run for just a little over thirty (30) minutes. It is, therefore,
whether a particular act involves a direct or a mere incidental clear that no undue religious bias is being committed when the
benefit to any church. Otherwise, the framers of the Constitution subject basement is allowed to be temporarily used by the
would have placed it before "use, benefit or support" to describe Catholics to celebrate mass, as the same area can be used by other
the same. Even the exception to the same provision bolsters this groups of people and for other purposes. 49 Thus, the basement of
interpretation. The exception contemplates a situation wherein the QC Hall of Justice has remained to be a public property
public funds are paid to a priest, preacher, minister, or other devoted for public use because the holding of Catholic masses
religious teacher, or dignitary because they rendered service in the therein is a mere incidental consequence of its primary purpose.
armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage
or leprosarium. That a priest belongs to a particular church and the