GARCES - v - ESTENZO
G.R.
No. L-53487
2. Father
Osmeña refused to return
image to the barangay council because church funds were used for its
acquisition.
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
May
25, 1981
Ponente: AQUINO, J.
Facts:
1. Valencia
Barangay Council in Ormoc City enacted the ff:
• Resolution
No. 5: acquisition of the image of San Vicente Ferrer and the construction of a
waiting shed (from solicitations, cash donations)
• Resolution
No. 6: Chairman of the fiesta, would be the caretaker of the image of San
Vicente Ferrer and that the image would remain in his residence for 1 year
until the election of his successor. It is available for the church during celebration of
the saint's feast day.
3. Valencia
barangay council represented by chairman Veloso (Reso # 12) filed a replevin
case against Fa. Osmeña,
et al. After the barangay council had posted P800 cash bond, Fa. Osmeña
returned the image. Fa. Osmeña answered assailing the
constitutionality of the resolutions together with Andres Garces, member of
Aglipayan Church, and 2 Catholic laymen in CFI Ormoc City praying for annulment
of resolutions. Case dismissed - resolutions were valid.
4. A.
Petitioners appealed under RA 5440. They contend that the barangay council was
not duly constituted because Mañago,
chairman of the kabataang barangay, was not allowed to participate in its
sessions. Held: Mañago’s
absence did not render resolutions void. There was a quorum when the said
resolutions were passed.
5. B.
Petitioners claim
that resolutions contravene the constitutional provisions that "no law shall
be made respecting an establishment of religion" and that "no public
money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, paid, or used, directly
or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church,
denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or for the use,
benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious
teacher or dignitary as such. except when such priest, preacher, minister, or
dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or
government orphanage or leprosarium (Sec. 8, Article IV and sec. 18[2], Article
VIII, Constitution).
Issue:
WON the resolutions are unconstitutional
Held:
No. SC affirmed CFI Ormoc decision.
Ratio:
•
The questioned resolutions do not directly
or indirectly establish any religion, nor abridge religious liberty, nor
appropriate public money or property for the benefit of any sect, priest or
clergyman. The image was purchased with private funds, not with tax money. The
construction of a waiting shed is entirely a secular matter.
•
If there is nothing unconstitutional
or illegal in holding a fiesta and having a patron saint for the barrio, then
any activity intended to facilitate the worship of the patron saint (such as
the acquisition and display of his image) cannot be branded as illegal.
•
This case is a petty quarrel over the
custody of a saint's image. lt would never have arisen if the parties had been
more diplomatic and tactful and if Father Osmeña had taken the trouble of causing
contributions to be solicited from his own parishioners for the purchase of
another image of San Vicente Ferrer to be installed in his church.
•
There can be no question that the
image in question belongs to the barangay council. Father Osmeña claim that it belongs to his church
is wrong. The barangay council, as owner of the image, has the right to
determine who should have custody thereof.
•
If it chooses to change its mind and
decides to give the image to the Catholic church, that action would not violate
the Constitution because the image was acquired with private funds and is its
private property.
•
The council has the right to take
measures to recover possession of the image by enacting Resolutions Nos. 10
(hiring a lawyer) and 12.
•
Not every governmental activity which
involves the expenditure of public funds and which has some religious tint is
violative of the constitutional provisions regarding separation of church and
state, freedom of worship and banning the use of public money or property.
