Question: A transgender woman, who is a brand ambassador hired by Brandbuzz PR

Agency, was assigned to promote cosmetic products in Malaya Malls. While she is in a
break, the Store Manager of Malaya Malls came to her and said, “Hoy bakla, buhatin
mo yung mga stocks sa bodega dalhin mo sakin ah”. She told the store manager that
she can’t handle the stocks alone. The store manager answered, “Kalalaki mong tao
hindi mo kayang magbuhat?”. She got offended by such remarks and filed a complaint
against the store manager and the store manager, in opposition, contended that he is
not liable to the complaint charged as he was not a direct employer. The employer is
Brandbuzz PR Agency and not Malaya Malls. Is this correct?

Answer: No. According to the rules, employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of
the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainer or any other person,
regardless of whether the demand, request for requirement for submission is accepted
by the object of said act having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in
a work or training or education environment, who demands, requests or otherwise
requires any sexual favor from another. Therefore, even if the store manager is not a
direct employer but the act was committed during the course of employment, provisions
of RA 11313, Safe Spaces Act are still applicable.

Question: In a complaint involving Gender Based Sexual Harassment, the respondent

argues that he cannot be liable for violation of the said act because the complaint was
filed six (6) months after the resignation of the victim. Is the contention tenable? Explain.

Answer: No. The law merely requires for the commission of the harassment and does
not provide for the time or period within which a victim may file the complaint. In the
Case of Phil. Aeolus Automotive United Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 124617, the court held
that:
Strictly speaking, there is no time period within which he or she is expected to
complain through the proper channels.
As a managerial employee, petitioner is bound by more exacting work ethics. When
such moral perversity is perpetuated against his subordinate, he provides a justifiable
ground for his dismissal for lack of trust and confidence. 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.