University of the Philippines College of Law

Working Conditions for Special Group of Workers – Women - Sexual Harassment, RA 7877
PHILIPPINE AEOLUS AUTO-MOTIVE UNITED CORPORATION
and/or FRANCIS CHUA, petitioners,
Case Name vs
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ROSALINDA C.
CORTEZ, respondents
DN | Date [G.R. No. 124617. April 28, 2000.]
Ponente BELLOSILLO, J : p

PHILIPPINE AEOLUS AUTO-MOTIVE UNITED CORPORATION (PAUUC)–

Petitioner/s Employer of respondent, Rosalinda
FRANCIS CHUA – President of Aeolus
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Respondent/s
ROSALINDA C. CORTEZ – company nurse
Private respondent, Cortez worked as a nurse for Philippine Aelous. She was dismissed following
several incidents, in one of which she threw a stapler at uttered abusive language at the Plant
Manager, William Chua. She raised the defense that she was sexually harassed by Chua which
Case was the cause for the incident.
Summary NLRC dismissed claim, alleging that she took too long to complain about the harassment which
casted doubt on the truthfulness of her complaints. SC reversed. Complaints for sexual
harassment do not have a time period within which the employee should seek recourse, so long
as they present clear and convincing evidence..
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
Doctrine
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.

RELEVANT FACTS
1. Petitioner, PAUUC was the employer of private respondent, Cortez who worked as a nurse with
the company.
2. Oct. 5 1994 – a memorandum was issued by the Personnel manager of PAUUC addressed to Cortez.
Required her to explain within (48) hours as to why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for
the following incidents:
a. Aug 2 1994 – threw a stapler at Plant Manager, William Chua and uttered invectives against him.
b. Aug 23 1994 – lost P1,488 entrusted to her by Chua.
c. Sept 6 1994 – asked her co-employee to punch in her time card despite her being absent for the
day.
3. Cortez refused to submit explanation. Led to her preventive suspension for (30) days, effective Oct. 9 –
Nov 7 1994.
a. Oct 20 – another memorandum was issued, gave Cruz (72) hours to explain another incident,
involving her failure to process ATM Applications of her (9) co-employees.
b. Oct. 21 – Cortez refused to receive the second memorandum but was read to her by co-employee.
In the same period, she submitted an explanation for the P1.48k incident.
 4. Nov. 3, 1994 – a 3rd memorandum was issued against Cortez. Informed her of termination of service,
effective Nov. 7 based on gross and habitual neglect of duties, serious misconduct and fraud or wilful
breach of trust.
5. Dec 6 1994 – Cortez filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter, citing illegal dismissal, non-payment of
annual service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay + damages against petitioners.
a. LA dismissed the case, finding that there was valid termination.
b. NLRC reversed, finding that there was illegal dismissal. Ordered reinstatement + backwages
computed from the time of dismissal to reinstatement. Motion for reconsideration denied, led to
current appeal.
6. Appeal – Cortez explained the incidents as follows:
a. Stapler – Plant Manager, William Chua took a liking to her as soon as she started with the
company. Gave her special treatment, invited her to dates as well as making sexual advances 1.
Chua told her that if she didn’t give in she would be terminated. This led to a disagreement
involving Chua allegedly moving her table and belongings without permission which led to an
argument.
b. P1,488 – that she gave the money to company personnel with the authorization of Chua.
c. Time-Card – she was doing an errand for a company officer, was also authorized by Chua.
d. ATM Processing – claimed no knowledge of such an incident. Also, not within the scope of her
tasks as a company nurse.

Issue/s Ratio Decidendi

1. W/N  Serious Misconduct – In order to be valid grounds for dismissal, misconduct must
there was be: (a) Serious; (b) Relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; (c) Must
illegal show that the employee has come unfit to continue to work for the employer.
dismissal
o Particular Acts committed by Cortez:
? – YES
 Stapler – serious misconduct, but not related to performance of
her duties as a nurse
 Time Card – not misconduct. Conducted in good faith as she was
performing work for an officer i.e. beneficial for the company.
First infraction in (5) years.
 ATM Processing – Not connected to her duties as a nurse.
Similarly, not gross negligence to warrant removal from service.
That requires proof that the negligence is gross and habitual.
 Wilful breach of trust – must be established by clear and convincing evidence
submitted by employer of the facts and incidents upon which the confidence was
lost. Here, not sufficiently established because of the above explanations.
 Sexual Harassment – NLRC dismissed Cortez’ claim for moral and exemplary
damages, affirming the LA decision. Citing Cortez’ failure to report the sexual
harassment for the duration of her (5) year employment with the company casting
doubt on it being the cause of the stapler incident. Thus, there was no proof of bad
faith or malice on the part of the company in her termination.
o SC – Sexual Harassment is not the violation of the employee’s sexuality,

1
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.
 but the abuse of power by the employer. There is no time period within
which the employee is expected to complain through the proper channels,
depending on the circumstances of the particular employee.
o (4) year lapse before complaint is not a bar to the claim for damages.
Oftentimes employees choose to suffer in silence because of
considerations such as: (a) Problem of securing other employment; (b)
Fear of a public scandal surrounding the complaint.
o Moral Damages – moral damages are awarded if the claimant sufficiently
proves that they suffered anxiety, sleepless nights, besmirched reputation,
and social humiliation by reason of the act complained of.
o Exemplary Damages – granted in addition to moral damages by way of
example or correction for the public good if the employer acted in a
wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.
o Application – Anxiety was a clear result of the sexual harassment Cortez
suffered. She was repeatedly threatened with dismissal if she did not give
in, etc. (See notes) As such, moral damages proper. Exemplary damages
granted as forewarning to lecherous officers and employers as well as for
the oppressive manner of her dismissal.
o Dismissal – SC points out that penalty of dismissal disproportionate to the
alleged infractions as there was no proof that Cortez was an incorrigible
offender or that there was serious damage to the company. Even
suspension pending investigation was excessive.

RULING

WHEREFORE, the Decision of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission

finding the dismissal of private respondent Rosalinda C. Cortez to be without just cause
and ordering petitioners Philippine Aeolus Automotive United Corporation and/or
Francis Chua to pay her back wages computed from the time of her dismissal, which
should be full back wages, is AFFIRMED.

However, in view of the strained relations between the adverse parties, instead of
reinstatement ordered by public respondent, petitioners should pay private respondent
separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service until finality
of this judgment. In addition, petitioners are ordered to pay private respondent
P25,000.00 for moral damages and P10,000.00 for exemplary damages. Costs against
petitioners. SO ORDERED.
Notes

“Anxiety was gradual in private respondent's (5)-year employment. It began when her plant manager showed an
obvious partiality for her which went out of hand when he started to make it clear that he would terminate her
services if she would not give in to his sexual advances. 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.
Thus, for the anxiety, the seen and unseen hurt that she suffered, petitioners should also be made to pay her
moral damages, plus exemplary damages, for the oppressive manner with which petitioners effected her
dismissal from the service, and to serve as a forewarning to lecherous ocers and employers who take undue
advantage of their ascendancy over their employee