Dissenting Opinion issued April 30, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-18-00127-CV

———————————

IN RE ALIEF VIETNAMESE ALLIANCE CHURCH

AND PHAN PHUNG HUNG, Relators

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

DISSENTING OPINION

Mandamus is not a tool to be used lightly. Instead, it “is an extraordinary 

remedy, reserved for manifest and urgent necessity, and will not issue unless 

relator satisfies a heavy burden of establishing compelling circumstances.” Tilton 

v. Marshall, 925 S.W.2d 672, 681 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding) (internal 

quotations and citation omitted). The two opposing versions of events presented in 

this defamation case make it a poor fit for mandamus relief. According to Paul 
2

Nguyen, he did not have an extramarital affair, he was not subject to church 

discipline, he decided to step back from his church leadership role for unrelated 

reasons before his wife brought her concerns to Pastor Hung, and he remained a 

church member. But, according to the church and its pastor, Paul Nguyen retreated 

from church life as some form of self-imposed church discipline for having an 

affair. Depending on which version an eventual factfinder found credible, Pastor 

Hung was either spreading damaging untrue gossip or he was talking to the church 

community about ecclesiastical matters beyond the reach of secular courts. On this 

record, we cannot say. See Tex. Nat’l Bank v. Karnes, 717 S.W.2d 901, 903 (Tex. 

1986) (stating that “a court of appeals cannot make original findings of fact”); 

Bellefonte Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Brown, 704 S.W.2d 742, 744 (Tex. 1986) 

(“Findings of fact are the exclusive province of the jury and/or trial court.”).

Without a fact finding about whether Nguyen was in fact under church 

discipline, we cannot determine whether this case is inextricably intertwined with 

ecclesiastical matters or is instead a defamation case that happens to be located in a 

religious community. Per the allegations, Pastor Hung offered salacious and 

concerning information about Nguyen to others without mentioning church 

discipline. Specifically, when fellow churchgoers inquired about Nguyen’s 

absence, Pastor Hung told a church officer that Nguyen had committed adultery 

with a parishioner and that, as a result, Nguyen was no longer a Deacon and no 
3

longer attended services. According to Nguyen, Pastor Hung also told a meeting of 

pastors in Austin that Nguyen was no longer a member or elder of the Church. 

There is no allegation that Pastor Hung mentioned church discipline either time.

The fact question of whether Nguyen was under church discipline is not 

something we can or should resolve on mandamus. See, e.g., Diocese of GalvestonHouston v. Stone, 892 S.W.2d 169, 177–178 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 

1994, orig. proceeding) (determining that a fact issue existed on whether 

termination decision implicated religious concerns and holding that “[i]t is 

precisely because this factual dispute exists that mandamus is improper.”). That 

fact question is something that must be decided by the trial court. Accordingly, I 

respectfully dissent.

Sarah Beth Landau

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Landau.

Justice Landau, dissenting.