Taruc v Dela Cruz

Taruc v. De la Cruz

[G.R. No. 144801. March 10, 2005] DOMINADOR L. TARUC, WILBERTO DACERA, NICANOR GALANIDA, RENERIO CANTA, JERRY CANTA, CORDENCIO CONSIGNA, SUSANO ALCALA, LEONARDO DIZON, SALVADOR GELSANO and BENITO LAUGO, petitioners, vs. BISHOP PORFIRIO B. DE LA CRUZ, REV. FR. RUSTOM FLORANO and DELFIN BORDAS, respondents . Facts: y y

y

y

y

The petitioners are lay me members mbers of  the P hil hilippine ppine Indep ndependent  Church (PIC) in Socorro, Suriga urigao Cit y. y. Petitioners led by Taruc clamored lamored for the tra tr ansfer of  parish parish priest  R ustom ustom Flor Flora ano for the rea reason tha that  Fr. Flor Flora anos wifes f ami amily be belonged to a po political itical part  part y opposed pposed to petitioner Tarucs. rucs. Bishop ishop De De la Cruz Cruz found this rea reason too f limsy so he did not  give in to the request . Things worsened w hen Taruc conducted an open mass mass for the tow tow n Fiest a cel celebrated by Fr F r. Ambong Ambong who was was not  a member mber of  the clergy ergy of  the diocese of  Suriga urigao. Petitioners were then exp expelled/exco lled/excomm mmunic unica ated from from the PIC for the rea reason of  (1) disob disobedience to duly duly constituted authorit y, (2) inciting dissension resu resullting in division of  the Parish Parish of  Our Mother of  P erp erpetual etual He Help and a nd (3) threa threatening to forcibl forcible e occupy occu py the Parish Parish Church causing anxiet y among among the Gener eneral al Me M embershi mbership. p. Petitioners fil filed a compla complaint  int  for dama amages ges with prel relimina inar y injunction against  Bishop ishop De De la Cruz Cruz and imple mpl eaded Fr. Flor Fl ora ano and a cert ain Delfin Borda ord as for consp conspiring with the Bishop. ishop. They They s aid tha that  their rights to due process were viola violated ted beca ecause they they were were not  hea heard before the order of  exp expulsion was wa s made made..

Whether Whether or not  the courts have  jurisdiction to hea hear a case invol involving the exp expulsion/excomm sion/excommunic unica ation of  members mbers of  a rel religious institution  NO

Issue:

Ratio: y

y

y

rticle III Section Section 5 of  Articl  A form form of  governm government  w here the compl complete ete sepa separr ation of  civil civil and and eccl ecc lesia esiastical stical authorit  authorit y is insisted upon, the civil civil courts must  not  allo allow them themsel selves to intrude unduly unduly in matters ma tters of  an eccl ecclesia esiastical stical in nature. ture . disputes invol involving rel religious institutions or orga organiza nizations, there is one area rea, which the Court  shoul should not  touch: touch: doctrinal doctrinal In disp and discipl disciplin ina ary differences. differences. To the power of  excl excl uding form form the church those alleged allegedly ly unw unworthy orthy of m of  m embershi mbership p, are unquestionably unquestionably eccl ecclesia esiastical stic al tters, hich re outside the rovince of  civil civi courts. courts matters, ma w a p l .

Comments mments:: records show show tha that  Bishop ishop De De la Cruz Cruz ple pleaded with petitioners several sever al tim times not to not  to comm commit  it  acts inim inimical ical to the best  interests of  PIC. They They were fell on dea deaf  ears. rs. were also also warned wa rned of  the consequences of  their actions yet  these ple pleas and warnings warnings fell