RA 7877 - “ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACT”

Domingo v. Rayala
G.R. No. 155831
February 18, 2008

DOCTRINE: It is not essential that the demand, request or requirement be made as a condition for continued employment or for
promotion to a higher position. It is enough that the respondent’s act result in creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive
environment for the employee.

FACTS:
Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo, then Stenographic Reporter III at the NLRC, filed a Complaint for sexual harassment against
Rayala before Secretary Bienvenido Laguesma of DOLE. The complaint contains the following allegations :

Holding and squeezing Domingos shoulders, running his fingers across her neck and tickling her ear, having
inappropriate conversations with her, giving her money allegedly for school expenses with a promise of future
privileges, and making statements with unmistakable sexua lover tones all these acts of Rayala resound with
deafening clarity the unspoken request for a sexual favor.

Upon receipt of the Complaint, DOLE Secretary referred it to the OP, Rayala being a presidential appointee. The OP,through
then Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora, ordered Secretary Laguesma to investigate the allegations in the Complaint and create a
committee for such purpose.
On December 4, 1998, Secretary Laguesma issued Admin. Order. No. 280, Series of 1998, constituting a Committee on
Decorum and Investigation (Committee) in accordance with Republic Act (RA) 7877, the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995. The
Committee heard the parties and received their respective evidence.
On March 2, 2000, the Committee submitted its report and recommendation to Secretary Laguesma. It found Rayala guilty
of the offense charged and recommended the imposition of the minimum penalty provided under AO 250, which it erroneously stated
as suspension for six (6) months (the correct penalty is 6months and 1 day).Executive Secretary Zamora, issued AO 119, which
dismissed Rayala from service effective upon receipt of the Order. Rayala filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the OP denied
in a Resolution. Under Rule 65, Filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order.
However, it was dismissed for disregarding the hierarchy of courts. Motion for reconsideration was filed and the case was referred
to CA for appropriate action.

CA: Sufficient evidence on record to create moral certainty that Rayala committed the acts he was charged with.Dismissed for
disgraceful and immoral conduct in violation of RA 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for PublicOfficials and
Employees.Rayala timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration. CA modified its ruling in a special division of 5, the penalty of
dismissal is DELETED and instead the penalty of suspension from service for the maximum period of one (1) year is HEREBY
IMPOSED upon the petitioner. The rest of the challenged decision stands.Domingo filed a Petition for Review, but was denied for
having a defective verification. MR granted, petition reinstated. Rayala likewise filed a Petition for Review arguing that he is not
guilty of any act of sexual harassment. Meanwhile, the Republic filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the CA, but was denied.

ISSUES:
W/N Rayala commits sexual harassment.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:
Rayala asserts that Domingo has failed to allege and establish any sexual favour, demand or request from petitioner in
exchange for her continued employment or for her promotion. According to Rayala, the acts imputed to him are without malice or
ulterior motive. It was merely Domingo’s perception of malice and a product of her own imagination.

RULING:
YES. Factual findings are conclusive on the SC. And quite significantly, Rayala himself admits to having committed some
of the acts imputed to him.It is noteworthy that the five CA Justices who deliberated on the case were unanimous in upholding the
findings of the Committee and the OP. They found the assessment made by the Committee and the OP to be a meticulous and
dispassionate analysis of the testimonies of the complainant (Domingo), the respondent (Rayala), and their respective witnesses.
They differed only on the appropriate imposable penalty.That Rayala committed the acts complained of and was guilty of sexual
harassment is, therefore, the common factual finding of not just one, but three independent bodies: the Committee, the OP and the
CA. It should be remembered that when supported by substantial evidence, factual findings made by quasi-judicial and administrative
bodies are accorded great respect and even finality by the courts. The principle, therefore, dictates that such findings should bind us.
Likewise, contrary to Rayala’s claim, it is not essential that the demand, request or requirement be made as a condition for
continued employment or for promotion to a higher position. It is enough that the respondent’s act result in creating an intimidating,
hostile or offensive environment for the employee.
Philippine Aeolus Automotive United Corporation vs. NLRC and Cortez
G.R. No. 124617
April 28, 2000

DOCTRINE: The gravamen of the offense in sexual harassment is not the violation of the employee’s sexuality but the abuse of
power by the employer. Any employee, male or female, may rightfully cry “foul” provided the claim is well substantiated. Strictly
speaking, there is no time period within which he or she is expected to complain through the proper channels. The time to do so may
vary depending upon the needs, circumstances, and more importantly, the emotional threshold of the employee.

FACTS:
Rosalinda Cortez was the company nurse at Philippine Aeolus. As early as her first year of employment, her Plant Manager,
William Chua, already manifested a special liking for her, that she was receiving special treatment from him who would oftentimes
invite her “for a date,” which she would as often refuse. On many occasions, he would make sexual advances – touching her hands,
putting his arms around her shoulders, running his fingers on her arms and telling her she looked beautiful. The special treatment
and sexual advances continued during her employment for four (4) years but she never reciprocated his flirtations, until finally, she
noticed that his attitude towards her changed. He made her understand that if she would not give in to his sexual advances he would
cause her termination from the service; and he made good his threat when he started harassing her. She just found out one day that
her table which was equipped with telephone and intercom units and containing her personal belongings was transferred without her
knowledge to a place with neither telephone nor intercom, for which reason, an argument ensued when she confronted Chua resulting
in her being charged with gross disrespect. The company then dismissed her for throwing a stapler and throwing invectives, among
others, at her Plant Manager, Chua. Rosalinda, thereafter, filed an illegal dismissal case and explained that the incident arose when
she had been trying to refuse the sexual advances of Chua. The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission ruled
in her favor, holding that the dismissal was illegal and ordering the company to pay her moral damages. The corporation elevated
the case on certiorari to the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE:
W/N NLRC gravely abused its discretion in holding as illegal the dismissal of private respondent (Cortez) and W/N she is entitled
to damages in the event that the illegality of her dismissal is sustained

RULING:
The Supreme Court declared Rosalinda’s dismissal illegal and affirmed the award of moral damages. It did not give merit
to the company’s argument that it is unbelievable that it took her four (4) years before she reacted violently in defense of her
womanhood. The court recognized Mr. Chuas acts as sexual harassment and explained that there is no time period for reporting such
crime saying:

Public respondent in thus concluding appears baffled why it took private respondent more than four (4) years to expose
William Chua’s alleged sexual harassment. It reasons out that it would have been more prepared to support her position if her act of
throwing the stapler and uttering invectives on William Chua were her immediate reaction to his amorous overtures. In that case,
according to public respondent, she would have been justified for such outburst because she would have been merely protecting her
womanhood, her person and her rights.

We are not persuaded. The gravamen of the offense in sexual harassment is not the violation of the employee’s sexuality
but the abuse of power by the employer. Any employee, male or female, may rightfully cry “foul” provided the claim is well
substantiated. Strictly speaking, there is no time period within which he or she is expected to complain through the proper channels.
The time to do so may vary depending upon the needs, circumstances, and more importantly, the emotional threshold of the employee.

Private respondent admittedly allowed four (4) years to pass before finally coming out with her employer’s sexual
impositions. Not many women, especially in this country, are made of the stuff that can endure the agony and trauma of a public,
even corporate, scandal. If Petitioner Corporation had not issued the third memorandum that terminated the services of private
respondent, we could only speculate how much longer she would keep her silence. Moreover, few persons are privileged indeed to
transfer from one employer to another. The dearth of quality employment has become a daily “monster” roaming the streets that one
may not be expected to give up one’s employment easily but to hang on to it, so to speak, by all tolerable means. Perhaps, to private
respondent’s mind, for as long as she could outwit her employer’s ploys she would continue on her job and consider them as mere
occupational hazards. This uneasiness in her place of work thrived in an atmosphere of tolerance for four (4) years, and one could
only imagine the prevailing anxiety and resentment, if not bitterness, that beset her all that time. But William Chua faced reality soon
enough. Since he had no place in private respondent’s heart, so must she have no place in his office. So, he provoked her, harassed
her, and finally dislodged her; and for finally venting her pent-up anger for years, he “found” the perfect reason to terminate her.

Sexual harassment is an imposition of misplaced “superiority” which is enough to dampen an employee’s spirit in her
capacity for advancement. It affects her sense of judgment. It changes her life, if for this alone private respondent should be
adequately compensated.