Professional Documents
Culture Documents
THIRD DIVISION
Promulgated:
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Designated Acting Member, in lieu of Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., per Raffle dated
March 5, 2015.
1
Rollo, pp. 10-31.
Appointed on August 23, 2005 as Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of
Olongapo City, Branch 2, per Master List of Incumbent Judges as of January 20, 2015;
http://jbc. judiciary. gov. ph/index/j udiciary-book/lower court/municipal-trial-courts-in-cities; accessed on
February 26, 2015 at 9:20 a.m.
3
Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, with Associate Justices, now Supreme
Court Associate Justices, Lucas P. Bersamin and Martin S. Villarama Jr., concurring; rol/o, pp. 33-59.
' Rollo, pp. 62-63. (:/
Decision -2- G.R. No. 175433
6
Id. at 46-47.
7
Rollo, pp. 41-42.
8
CA rollo, pp. 48-52.
Decision -4- G.R. No. 175433
In an Order dated June 27, 2001, the parties were directed to appear
for the preliminary conference of the administrative case. Both parties
appeared as directed and agreed to submit the case for decision based on the
evidence on record and pleadings filed.
SO RESOLVED.11
9
Id. at 53.
10
Id. at 54-58.
11
Id. at 81.
Decision -5- G.R. No. 175433
SO ORDERED.12
SO ORDERED.15
18
Rollo, p. 18. (Citation omitted)
Decision -7- G.R. No. 175433
The Court shall first delve on the procedural issue of the case. In
Imperial v. Court of Appeals,22 the Court ruled:
19
An Act Declaring Sexual Harassment Unlawful in the Employment, Education or Training
Environment, and for other purposes.
20
226 Phil. 144 ( 1986).
21
374 Phil. 867 (1999).
22
Alberto Imperial v. Hon. Court of Appeals and the Republic of the Philippines, 606 Phil. 391
(2009). (Citations omitted)
Decision -8- G.R. No. 175433
While the CA was correct in denying his Urgent Motion for Extension
to File Motion for Reconsideration for being a prohibited motion, the Court,
in the interest of justice, looked into the merits of the case, and opted to
suspend the prohibition against such motion for extension after it found that
a modification of the CA Decision is warranted by the law and the
jurisprudence on administrative cases involving sexual harassment. The
emerging trend of jurisprudence, after all, is more inclined to the liberal and
flexible application of procedural rules.26 Rules of procedure exist to ensure
the orderly, just and speedy dispensation of cases; to this end, inflexibility or
liberality must be weighed. Thus, the relaxation or suspension of procedural
rules, or exemption of a case from their operation is warranted only by
compelling reasons or when the purpose of justice requires it.27
The Court shall now delve on the substantive issue of whether the CA
gravely erred in reversing the Memorandum-Order of the Overall Deputy
Ombudsman which downgraded petitioner's infraction from grave
misconduct to simple misconduct, and the penalty imposed on him from
dismissal to a mere one (1) month suspension without pay.
23
Id. at 396-397.
24
Id. at 397.
25
V.C. Ponce, Company, Inc. v. Municipality of Parañaque and Sampaguita Hills Homeowner's
Association, Inc., G.R. No. 178431, November 12, 2012, 685 SCRA 117, 130.
26
Hon. Orlando C. Casimiro, in his capacity as Acting Ombudsman; Hon. Rogelio L. Singson, in
his capacity as Department of Public Works and Highways Secretary v. Josefino N. Rigor, G.R. No.
206661, December 10, 2014.
27
Id.
Decision -9- G.R. No. 175433
28
G.R. No. 183161, December 3, 2014.
29
Rollo, pp. 53-54.
30
630 Phil. 577 (2010).
Decision - 10 - G.R. No. 175433
31
Narvasa v. Sanchez, Jr., supra, at 582.
32
Supra note 30.
33
569 Phil. 37 (2008).
34
Civil Service Commission v. Nierras, supra, at 43.
Decision - 11 - G.R. No. 175433
“RULE X
Section 53. Sexual harassment is classified as grave, less grave and light
offenses.
B. Less Grave Offenses shall include, but are not limited to:
1. unwanted touching or brushing against a victim’s body;
2. pinching not falling under grave offenses;
3. derogatory or degrading remarks or innuendoes directed toward
the members of one sex, or one’s sexual orientation or used to describe a
person;
4. verbal abuse with sexual overtones; and
5. other analogous cases.
35
478 Phil. 1 (2004).
Decision - 12 - G.R. No. 175433
after the offender has been advised that they are offensive or embarrassing
or, even without such advise, when they are by their nature clearly
embarrassing, offensive or vulgar;
3. malicious leering or ogling;
4. the display of sexually offensive pictures, materials or graffiti;
5. unwelcome inquiries or comments about a person’s sex life;
6. unwelcome sexual flirtation, advances, propositions;
7. making offensive hand or body gestures at an employee;
8. persistent unwanted attention with sexual overtones;
9. unwelcome phone calls with sexual overtones causing discomfort,
embarrassment, offense or insult to the receiver; and
10. other analogous cases.
RULE XI
ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITIES
Section 55. Any person who is found guilty of sexual harassment shall,
after the investigation, be meted the penalty corresponding to the gravity
and seriousness of the offense.
Section 56. The penalties for light, less grave, and grave offenses are as
follows:
A. For light offenses:
1st offense – Reprimand 2nd offense – Fine or suspension not exceeding
thirty (30) days 3rd offense – Dismissal
B. For less grave offenses:
1st offense – Fine or suspension of not less than thirty (30) days and
not exceeding six (6) months 2nd offense – Dismissal
C. For grave offenses: Dismissal” (Emphasis added)
Applying the foregoing provisions, the Court finds that the sexual
harassment offense petitioner committed falls under less grave offenses
which is analogous to “unwanted touching or brushing against a victim’s
body”, and to “derogatory or degrading remarks or innuendoes directed
toward the members of one sex”, with the corresponding maximum penalty
of six (6) months suspension without pay.36
36
Section 56 of the URACCS states that during the period of suspension, respondent shall not be
entitled to all money benefits including leave credits. Now Section 51 (c) of the Revised Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS).
37
Now Section 48 of the RRACCS.
Decision - 13 - G.R. No. 175433
a. Physical Illness
b. Good faith
c. Taking undue advantage of official position
d. Taking undue advantage of subordinate
e. Undue disclosure of confidential information
f. Use of government property in the commission of the offense
g. Habituality
h. Offense is committed during office hours and within the premises of the
office or building;
i. Employment of fraudulent means to commit or conceal the offense
j. Length of service in the government
k. Education
l. Other analogous circumstances.
The Court notes that the Deputy Overall Ombudsman was correct in
appreciating the following mitigating circumstances in determining the
imposable penalty, to wit: (1) petitioner's weak physical condition and (2)
commission of the offense in a public place and in the presence of their
office mates. However, the said Ombudsman gravely erred in failing to
consider the following aggravating circumstances: (1) taking undue
advantage of official position; (2) taking undue advantage of subordinate;
and (3) education. As the Head of the Legal Department of PHILRACOM
and the direct superior of respondent, petitioner's act of forcibly kissing her
lips and saying “Ang sarap pala ng labi ni Maila x x x” in front of their
office mates, smacks of bad faith, abuse of official position, flagrant
disregard of the anti-sexual harassment law,38 and willful violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.39 Under Section 54 (d) of the
URACCS,40 where more aggravating circumstances are present than
mitigating ones, the maximum penalty shall be imposed. Hence, the Court
imposes the penalty of suspension of six (6) months without pay.
38
R.A. No. 7877.
39
Canon 7, Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of
the legal profession.
40
Now Section 49 (d) of the RRACCS.
41
Bureau of Internal Revenue v. Office of the Ombudsman, 430 Phil. 223, 232 (2002).
42
Laurel v. Desierto, 430 Phil. 658, 671 (2002).
Decision - 14 - G.R. No. 175433
43
Esquivel v. Ombudsman, 437 Phil. 702, 711 (2002).
44
Caña v. Gebusion, 385 Phil. 773 (2000).
45
Barillo v. Gervacio, 532 Phil. 267, 279 (2006).
46
Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439, 459.
47
Section 56 (d) of the URACCS; Now Section 51 (c) of the RRACCS.
48
See note 2; Appointed August 23, 2005.
Decision - 15 - G.R. No. 175433
SO ORDERED.
.PERALTA
WE CONCUR:
\,
FRANCI~ZA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
CERTIFICATION