1/24/2017 G.R. No.

L-53487

TodayisTuesday,January24,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L53487May25,1981

ANDRESGARCES,ReverendFatherSERGIOMARILAOOSMEA,NICETASDAGARandJESUS
EDULLANTES,petitioners,
vs.
Hon.NUMERIANOG.ESTENZO,PresidingJudgeoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofLeyte,OrmocCityBranch
V,BARANGAYCOUNCILofValencia,OrmocCity,BarangayCaptainMANUELC.VELOSO,Councilmen
GAUDENCIOLAVEZARES,TOMASCABATINGANandMAXIMINONAVARRO,BarangaySecretary
CONCHITAMARAYAandBarangayTreasurerLUCENABALTAZAR,respondents.

AQUINO,J.: 1wph1.t

ThiscaseisabouttheconstitutionalityoffourresolutionsofthebarangaycouncilofValencia,OrmocCity,regarding
theacquisitionofthewoodenimageofSanVicenteFerrertobeusedinthecelebrationofhisannualfeastday.That
issuewasspawnedbythecontroversyastowhethertheparishpriestoralaymanshouldhavethecustodyofthe
image.

On March 23, 1976, the said barangay council adopted Resolution No. 5, "reviving the traditional socioreligious
celebration"everyfifthdayofApril"ofthefeastdayofSeorSanVicenteFerrer,thepatronsaintofValencia".

Thatresolutiondesignatedthemembersofninecommitteeswhowouldtakechargeofthe1976festivity.ltprovided
for (1) the acquisition of the image of San Vicente Ferrer and (2) the construction of a waiting shed as the
barangay'sprojects.Fundsforthetwoprojectswouldbeobtainedthroughthesellingofticketsandcashdonations"
(ExhAor6).

On March 26, 1976, the barangay council passed Resolution No. 6 which specified that, in accordance with the
practiceinEasternLeyte,CouncilmanTomasCabatingan,theChairmanorhermanomayorofthefiesta,wouldbe
thecaretakeroftheimageofSanVicenteFerrerandthattheimagewouldremaininhisresidenceforoneyearand
untiltheelectionofhissuccessoraschairmanofthenextfeastday.

ItwasfurtherprovidedintheresolutionthattheimagewouldbemadeavailabletotheCatholicparishchurchduring
thecelebrationofthesaint'sfeastday(Exh.Bor7).

ResolutionsNos.5and6weresubmittedtoaplebisciteandweredulyratifiedbythebarangaygeneralassemblyon
March26,1976.Twohundredseventytwovotersratifiedthetworesolutions(Exh.2and5).

Funds were raised by means of solicitations0 and cash donations of the barangay residents and those of the
neighboringplacesofValencia.Withthosefunds,thewaitingshedwasconstructedandthewoodenimageofSan
VicenteFerrerwasacquiredinCebuCitybythebarangaycouncilforfourhundredpesos(Exh.Fl,3and4).

OnApril5,1976,theimagewastemporarilyplacedinthealtaroftheCatholicchurchofBarangayValenciasothat
thedevoteescouldworshipthesaintduringthemassforthefiesta.

A controversy arose after the mass when the parish priest, Father Sergio Marilao Osmea refused to return that
imagetothebarangaycouncilonthepretextthatitwasthepropertyofthechurchbecausechurchfundswereused
foritsacquisition.

Several days after the fiesta or on April 11, 1976, on the occasion of his sermon during a mass, Father Osmea
allegedly uttered defamatory remarks against the barangay captain, Manuel C. Veloso, apparently in connection
withthedisputedimage.ThatincidentprovokedVelosotofileagainstFatherOsmeainthecitycourtofOrmocCity
achargeforgraveoraldefamation.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1981/may1981/gr_53487_1981.html 1/4
1/24/2017 G.R. No. L-53487
Father Osmea retaliated by filing administrative complaints against Veloso with the city mayor's office and the
Department of Local Government and Community Development on the grounds of immorality, grave abuse of
authority,actsunbecomingapublicofficialandignoranceofthelaw.

Meanwhile,theimageofSanVicenteFerrerremainedintheCatholicchurchofValencia.BecauseFatherOsmea
didnotaccedetotherequestofCabatingantohavecustodyoftheimageand"maliciouslyignored"thecouncil's
ResolutionNo.6,thecouncilenactedonMay12,1976ResolutionNo.10,authorizingthehiringofalawyertofilea
replevincaseagainstFatherOsmeafortherecoveryoftheimage(Exh.Cor8).OnJune14,1976,thebarangay
councilpassedResolutionNo.12,appointingVelosoasitsrepresentativeinthereplevincase(Exh.Dor9).

ThereplevincasewasfiledinthecitycourtofOrmocCityagainstFatherOsmeaandBishopCiprianoUrgel(Exh.
F). After the barangay council had posted a cash bond of eight hundred pesos, Father Osmea turned over the
imagetothecouncil(p.10,Rollo).lnhisanswertothecomplaintforreplevin,heassailedtheconstitutionalityofthe
saidresolutions(Exh.F1).

Later,heandthreeotherpersons,AndresGarces,amemberoftheAglipayanChurch,andtwoCatholiclaymen,
JesusEdullantesandNicetasDagar,filedagainstthebarangaycouncilanditsmembers(excludingtwomembers)a
complaintintheCourtofFirstInstanceatOrmocCity,prayingfortheannulmentofthesaidresolutions(CivilCase
No.16800).

The lower court dismissed the complaint. lt upheld the validity of the resolutions. The petitioners appealed under
RepublicActNo.5440.Thepetitionerscontendthatthebarangaycouncilwasnotdulyconstitutedbecauselsidoro
M.Maago,Jr.,thechairmanofthekabataangbarangay,wasnotallowedtoparticipateinitssessions.

Barangaysusedtobeknownascitizensassemblies(PresidentialDecreesNos.86and86A).PresidentialDecree
No. 557, which took effect on September 21, 1974, 70 O.G. 8450L, directed that all barrios should be known as
barangaysandadoptedtheRevisedBarrioCharterastheBarangayCharter.

Barrios are units of municipalities or municipal districts in which they are situated. They are quasimunicipal
corporations endowed with such powers" as are provided by law "for the performance of particular government
functions, to be exercised by and through their respective barrio governments in conformity with law" (Sec. 2,
RevisedBarrioCharter,R.A.No.3590).

Thebarrioassemblyconsistsofallpersonswhoareresidentsofthebarrioforatleastsixmonths,eighteenyearsof
ageoroverandFilipinocitizensdulyregisteredinthelistkeptbythebarriosecretary(Sec.4,Ibid).

Thebarriocouncil,nowbarangaycouncil,iscomposedofthebarangaycaptainandsixcouncilmen(Sec.7,Ibid).
Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 684, which took effect on April 15, 1975, provides that "the barangay youth
chairman shall be an exofficio member of the barangay council", having the same powers and functions as a
barangaycouncilman.

Inthiscase,Maago,thebarangayyouthchairman,wasnotifiedofthesessionsofthebarangaycounciltobeheld
on March 23 and 26, 1976 but he was not able to attend those sessions because he was working with a
constructioncompanybasedatIpil,OrmocCity(Par.2[d]Exh.1).

Maago'sabsencefromthesessionsofthebarangaycouncildidnotrenderthesaidresolutionsvoid.Therewasa
quorumwhenthesaidresolutionswerepassed.

Theothercontentionofthepetitionersisthattheresolutionscontravenetheconstitutionalprovisionsthat"nolaw
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,sectarianinstitution,orsystemofreligion,orfortheuse,benefit,orsupportofanypriest,preacher,
minister,orotherreligiousteacherordignitaryassuch.exceptwhensuchpriest,preacher,minister,ordignitaryis
assignedtothearmedforces,ortoanypenalinstitution,orgovernmentorphanageorleprosarium(Sec.8,ArticleIV
andsec.18[2],ArticleVIII,Constitution).

That contention is glaringly devoid of merit. The questioned resolutions do not directly or indirectly establish any
religion,norabridgereligiousliberty,norappropriatepublicmoneyorpropertyforthebenefitofanysect,priestor
clergyman.Theimagewaspurchasedwithprivatefunds,notwithtaxmoney.Theconstructionofawaitingshedis
entirelyasecularmatter.

ManifestlypuerileandflimsyisPetitionersargumentthatthebarangaycouncilfavoredtheCatholicreligionbyusing
thefundsraisedbysolicitationsanddonationsforthepurchaseofthepatronsaint'swoodenimageandmakingthe
imageavailabletotheCatholicchurch.

Thepreposterousnessofthatargumentisrenderedmoreevidentbythefactthatcounseladvancedthatargument
inbehalfofthepetitioner,FatherOsmeatheparishpriest.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1981/may1981/gr_53487_1981.html 2/4
1/24/2017 G.R. No. L-53487
Thewoodenimagewaspurchasedinconnectionwiththecelebrationofthebarriofiestahonoringthepatronsaint,
San Vicente Ferrer, and not for the purpose of favoring any religion nor interfering with religious matters or the
religiousbeliefsofthebarrioresidents.Oneofthehighlightsofthefiestawasthemass.Consequently,theimageof
thepatronsainthadtobeplacedinthechurchwhenthemasswascelebrated.

If there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal in holding a fiesta and having a patron saint for the barrio, then any
activityintendedtofacilitatetheworshipofthepatronsaint(suchastheacquisitionanddisplayofhisimage)cannot
bebrandedasillegal.

Asnotedinthefirstresolution,thebarriofiestaisasocioreligiousaffair.Itscelebrationisaningrainedtraditionin
ruralcommunities.Thefiestarelievesthemonotonyanddrudgeryofthelivesofthemasses.

Thebarangaycouncildesignatedalaymanasthecustodianofthewoodenimageinordertoforestallanysuspicion
that it is favoring the Catholic church. A more practical reason for that arrangement would be that the image, if
placed in a layman's custody, could easily be made available to any family desiring to borrow the image in
connectionwithprayersandnovenas.

The contradictory positions of the petitioners are shown in their affidavits. Petitioner Garces swore that the said
resolutions favored the Catholic church. On the other hand, petitioners Dagar and Edullantes swore that the
resolutionsprejudicedtheCatholicsbecausetheycouldseetheimageinthechurchonlyonceayearorduringthe
fiesta(Exh.HandJ).

We find that the momentous issues of separation of church and state, freedom of religion annd the use of public
money to favor any sect or church are not involved at all in this case even remotely or indirectly. lt is not a
microcosmictestcaseonthoseissues.

Thiscaseisapettyquarreloverthecustodyofasaint'simage.ltwouldneverhavearisenifthepartieshadbeen
morediplomaticandtactfulandifFatherOsmeahadtakenthetroubleofcausingcontributionstobesolicitedfrom
hisownparishionersforthepurchaseofanotherimageofSanVicenteFerrertobeinstalledinhischurch.

Therecanbenoquestionthattheimageinquestionbelongstothebarangaycouncil.FatherOsmeaclaimthatit
belongstohischurchiswrong.Thebarangaycouncil,asowneroftheimage,hastherighttodeterminewhoshould
havecustodythereof.

IfitchoosestochangeitsmindanddecidestogivetheimagetotheCatholicchurch.thatactionwouldnotviolate
theConstitutionbecausetheimagewasacquiredwithprivatefundsandisitsprivateproperty.

ThecouncilhastherighttotakemeasurestorecoverpossessionoftheimagebyenactingResolutionsNos.10and
12.

Noteverygovernmentalactivitywhichinvolvestheexpenditureofpublicfundsandwhichhassomereligioustintis
violativeoftheconstitutionalprovisionsregardingseparationofchurchandstate,freedomofworshipandbanning
theuseofpublicmoneyorproperty.

InAglipayvs.Ruiz,64Phil.201,whatwasinvolvedwasActNo.4052whichappropriatedsixtythousandpesosfor
thecostofplatesandtheprintingofpostagestampswithnewdesigns.Underthelaw,theDirectorofPosts,withthe
approval of the Department Head and the President of the Philippines, issued in 1936 postage stamps to
commemorate the celebration in Manila of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress sponsored by the Catholic
Church.

ThepurposeofthestampswastoraiserevenueandadvertisethePhilippines.Thedesignofthestampsshoweda
mapofthePhilippinesandnothingabouttheCatholicChurch.Noreligiouspurposewasintended.

MonsignorGregorioAglipay,thefounderandheadofthePhilippineIndependentChurch,soughttoenjointhesale
ofthosecommemorativepostagestamps.

Itwasheldthattheissuanceofthestamps,whilelinkedinseparablywithaneventofareligiouscharacter,wasnot
designedasapropagandafortheCatholicChurch.Aglipay'sprohibitionsuitwasdismissed.

The instant case is easily distinguishable from Verzosa vs. Fernandez, 49 Phil., 627 and 55 Phil. 307, where a
religious brotherhood, La Archicofradia del Santisimo Sacramento, organized for the purpose of raising funds to
meet the expenses for the annual fiesta in honor of the Most Holy Sacrament and the Virgin Lady of Guadalupe,
washeldaccountableforthefundswhichitheldastrustee.0

Findingthatthepetitionershavenocauseofactionfortheannulmentofthebarangayresolutions,thelowercourt's
judgmentdismissingtheiramendedpetitionisaffirmed.Nocosts.

SOORDERED.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1981/may1981/gr_53487_1981.html 3/4