MANILA – The Supreme Court has suspended a law professor from the Xavier University in

Cagayan de Oro City over text messages and sexist conduct which the Court deemed amounted to
sexual harassment.

In an 11-page decision dated April 10 but released only on Monday, the Court unanimously barred
lawyer Cresencio Co Untian from practicing law for 5 years and from teaching for 10 years.

“Wherefore, respondent Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr. is suspended from the practice of law for
five (5) years and ten (10) years from teaching law in any school effective upon the finality of this
Resolution, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more
severely,” the Court said through SC Associate Justice Jose Reyes Jr.

The case stemmed from complaints from 3 law students accusing Co Untian of sexual harassment.

One student said Co Untian sent her flowers and romantic messages through text. He also invited her
to go to Camiguin, which she turned down.

Another student complained that he showed her a photo of a naked woman that resembled her and
teased her in front of other students.

The third student accused the professor of twisting her remarks during a class recitation, “Sir, come
again,” to connote sexual meaning and repeating the joke in other classes.

In his defense, Co Untian said the 3 complainants were disgruntled students who flunked his classes
in 2001-2002. He justified the text messages “luv u” and “miss u” as friendly messages without
malice and his other acts as mere “jokes” to inject humor in class.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines initially recommended Co Untian’s disbarment due to gross
immoral conduct but upon appeal, it reduced the penalty to suspension for 2 years because the acts he
allegedly committed do not amount to sexual harassment since there was no evidence that he
demanded or requested sexual favors.

The Supreme Court however, disagreed, saying the law does not require that the victim accede to
sexual desires of the abuser or that a demand or request for sexual favor be categorically made.

“In short, it is not necessary that there was an offer for sex for there to be sexual harassment as a
superior’s conduct with sexual underpinnings, which offends the victim or creates a hostile
environment would suffice,” it said, citing a 2000 case where the Court said that the essence of
sexual harassment is not the violation of the victim’s sexuality but the abuse of power by the
offender.

“What the law aims to punish is the undue exercise of power and authority manifested through
sexually charged conduct or one filled with sexual undertones,” it explained.