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
Respondent/s
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
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 was
the cause for the incident.
Case 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
Doctrine 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.

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 be:
there was (a) Serious; (b) Relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; (c) Must show that
illegal the employee has come unfit to continue to work for the employer.
dismissal?
– YES o Particular Acts committed by Cortez:
 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, 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

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.
 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