Nature and Definition of Sexual Harassment

Section 3, R.A. 7877

Work, Education or Training -Related, Sexual Harassment Defined. – Work, education or 
training-related sexual harassment is committed by an employer, employee, manager, supervisor,
agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other  person who,
having authority, influence or moral ascendancy  over another in a work or training or education
environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor  from the other,
regardless of whether the demand, request or  requirement for submission is accepted by the
object of said Act.
 
      (a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual  harassment is committed when:

                  (1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or  in the employment, re-
employment or continued employment  of said individual, or in granting said individual
favorable compensation, terms of conditions, promotions, or privileges;  or the refusal to grant
the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in any way 
would discriminate, deprive ordiminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect
said employee;
             
                  (2) The above acts would impair the employee’s rights or  privileges under existing
labor laws; or
             
                  (3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile,  or offensive environment
for the employee.

       (b) In an education or training environment, sexual harassment is committed:      

                (1) Against one who is under the care, custody or supervision of the offender;  

              (2) Against one whose education, training, apprenticeship  or tutorship is entrusted to
the offender;
             
                (3) When the sexual favor is made a condition to the giving  of a passing grade, or the
granting of honors and scholarships,  or the payment of a stipend, allowance or other benefits, 
privileges, or consideration; or
             
                (4) When the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or offensive
environment for the student, trainee or  apprentice.

      Any person who directs or induces another to commit any  act of sexual harassment as herein
defined, or who cooperates  in the commission thereof by another without which it would  not
have been committed, shall also be held liable under this  Act.
Sexual Harassment is the act of demanding or requesting sexual favors, by a person having
authority or moral ascendancy over another, regardless of whether the demand or request is
accepted or not.

Sexual harassment is not about a man taking advantage of a woman by reason of sexual desire. It
is about power being exercised by a superior officer over his woman subordinates. The power
emanates from the fact that the superior can remove the subordinate from his workplace if the
latter would refuse his amorous advances.

The gravamen of the offense of sexual harassment is not a violation of sexuality but the abuse of
power by the superior.

It is necessary that the demand, request or requirement for sexual harassment be articulated in a
categorical oral or written statement. It may be discerned with equal certitude, from the acts of
the superior. It is not even essential that the demand, request or requirement be made as a
condition for continued employment or for promotion. It is enough that the respondent’s acts
resulted in creating an intimidation hostile or offensive environment for the employees.

Philippine Aeolus Automotive vs. NLRC

FACTS: William Chua was the plant manager of Philippine Aeolus Automotive. Rosalinda
Cortez was the company nurse. According to Cortez, as early as the first year of her
employment, Chua already manifested a special liking for her, so much so that she was receiving
special treatment from him. Chua would oftentimes invite her for a date which she would as
often refuse. On many occasions, Chua 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 4 years but she never reciprocated his flirtations, until finally, she
noticed that his attitude towards her chanced, he made her understand that
if she would not give in to his sexual advances he would cause her termination from service.
Chua made good his threat. 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.

ISSUE: Was there sexual harassment on the part of Chua?

HELD: There was sexual harassment because the sexual advances of CHUA resulted in a hostile
or offensive working environment for CORTEZ. The NRC's ruling that the alleged
sexual harassment is hardly believable because it took her al- most four (4) years to expose
CHUA's sexual harassment is not correct. Strictly speaking, there is no time period within which
an employee is expected to complain about sexual harassment. The time to do so may vary
depending upon the needs, circumstances, and more importantly, the emotional threshold of the
employee. Not many women, especially in this country, made of stuff that can endure the agony
and trauma of a public, even corporate, scandal
Floralde vs. CA

FACTS: Yolanda Floralde, Nida Velasco, and Normita Alambra, all rank-and-file employees of
the Agricultural Training Institute filed sexual harassment charges
against Paulino Resma, the OIC. Yolanda Floralde declared that at around 4:00 p.m. at the
anteroom of the Director's Office, Resma approached her and asked her: "Ano yan, pagkatapos
aho'y pinalapit sa kanyang kinaroroonan * 2 2 nanatili akong, nakatayo ngunit maya-maya ay
bigla na lang siyang tumayo at dinahma ang puwit ho ng
papillptell." She further declared that this was not the only incident that RESMA sexually
harassed her. RESMA would also pinch her at her side close to her bust, and whenever they met
at the corridor, RESMA would make motion as though he would embrace her. NIDA VELASCO
declared that in 1990, RESMA made her first advances toward her. According to VELASCO,
"habang binubuksan ko po and pinto ng refrigerator sa Orosa Hall, bigla po nya ao niyakap at
hinawakan a maselang parte ng aking dilbdib at bigla po ahong hinalikan sa bibig. Binantaan po
nya aho na kapap, nageumbon ay hindi niya irerenew ang aking appointment dahil casual lang po
ako." VELASCO further testified that RESMA would often comment that "mamula-mula ang
iyong pag-aari at fresh na fresh ha pa" and she would answer "lolo ka na nga eh, gago ka pa." At
one time, she was watching a volleyball game when she felt someone touch her buttocks and
when she looked back, it was Resma, who told her “nakakagigil ka.”

NORMELITA ALHAMBRA declared that in 1990 at around 7:00 a.m. RESMA suddenly
embraced her. ALHAMBRA further declared that: "tuwing maglalagay ako ng tubig sa baso sa
loob ng CR biglang sumusulpot si Mr. Resma at dinadakma ang puwit ko at sinasabing gusting-
gusto nya ang malalaking puwit." ALHAMBRA also declared that at one time, "nakasuot ako ng
long sleeve na red at white maong pants galing ako sa CR bigla akong binaggga ni Mr. Resma at
dinakma ang aking dibdib.

Domingo vs. Rayala

FACTS: Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo (Domingo), then Stenographic Reporter III at the NLRC,
filed a Complaint for sexual harassment against Rayala, the chairman of NLRC.
She alleged that Rayala called her in his office and touched her shoulder, part of her neck then
tickled her ears.  Rayala argued that his acts does not constitute sexual harassment because for it
to exist, there must be a demand, request or requirement of sexual favor.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Rayala commit sexual harassment.

RULING:

Yes.

The law penalizing sexual harassment in our jurisdiction is RA 7877. Section 3 thereof defines
work-related sexual harassment in this wise:
Sec. 3. Work, Education or Training-related Sexual Harassment Defined. – Work, education or
training-related sexual harassment is committed by an employer, manager, supervisor, agent of
the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having
authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or education
environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless
of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said
Act.
(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is committed when:
(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-employment or
continued employment of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation,
terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in
limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in a way would discriminate, deprive or
diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee;
(2)  The above acts would impair the employee’s rights or privileges under existing labor laws;
or
(3)  The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the
employee.

even if we were to test Rayala’s acts strictly by the standards set in Section 3, RA 7877, he
would still be administratively liable. It is true that this provision calls for a “demand, request or
requirement of a sexual favor.” But it is not necessary that the demand, request or requirement of
a sexual favor be articulated in a categorical oral or written statement. It may be discerned, with
equal certitude, from the acts of the offender. Holding and squeezing Domingo’s 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 sexual overtones – all these acts of Rayala resound with
deafening clarity the unspoken request for a sexual favor.