On January 16, 2020, MM started working for LBC Express-Vis Inc.

(LBC) as a customer
associate in its Gaisano Danao Branch (LBC Danao). The Branch's Team Leader FF
endorsed her application for the post and acted as her immediate superior. While employed
at LBC, MM had initially noticed that FF would often flirt with her, which made her
uncomfortable. Later, FF started doing acts detailed as follows:

1.) FF stared and smiled at her. She also sensed some meaning in the way he talked to
her, though she initially ignored these and just tried to focus on her job.

2.) At one time FF offered to lend her money, which she refused, not wanting to be
indebted to him.

3.) There was likewise an instance when he secretly gave her chocolate, which she felt
uncomfortable about, there being no special occasion then.

4.) Respondent FF’s actions grew bolder by the day. Whenever he approached her while
working, he found ways to hold her hand or put his hand on her lap, if not, on her
shoulder.

5.) Then, the time came when he started to kiss her on the cheek in a joking manner.

6.) On certain occasions, he pulled the strap of her bra, which made her feel really
uncomfortable. When she tried to rebuke him on such, he started to kiss her on the
cheek in a joking manner. would just tell her that it was a joke.

7.) There was also a time when he joked about making a baby with her. He told her that if
she will get married someday, he wants to join with her husband in making the baby.
She just laughed it off, but she knew there was something wrong with the joke. The final
straw happened at around 8:00 a.m. on May 1, 2021. That morning, FF sneaked in on
MM while she was in a corner counting money. MM was caught by surprise and
exclaimed, "Kuyawa nako nimo sir, oy!" (You scared me, sir!). FF then held her on her
hips and attempted to kiss her lips. However, MM was able to shield herself. FF then
tried a second time and was able to kiss MM’s lips before she could react. Distress with
the events, MM stopped reporting for work.

QUESTIONS:

1.) Was a crime committed?

Yes, there was a crime committed.

2.) If so, what crime did FF commit? Explain following the 3-paragraph rule.

FF committed the crime of a Violation of RA 7877 of Anti-Sexual Harassment Law.

Under Sec. 3 of RA 7877, provides that 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 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
or not by the object of said act.

In this case, FF acts of endorsing MM of the post as immediate supervisor at an early

time, starting to stare and smile at her, offered to lend her money, secretly giving chocolate,
hold her hand or put his hand on her lap, if not, on her shoulder, started to kiss her on the
cheek in a joking manner, he pulled the strap of her bra in one instance, joking about
making a baby with her, and then a time came FF held her on her hips and attempted to kiss
her lips. MM stopped reporting to work when the incident happened for a second time that
FF was able to kiss MM’s lips intentionally. Considering that the said acts of FF against MM
was influence by one having its authority, influence or moral ascendancy of an aggressive
disturbance of the victim.

Hence, FF committed an acts violating RA 7877 of Anti-Sexual Harassment Law.

3.) If you were the judge, will you convict FF? State your reason.

Yes, If I were the Judge I will convict FF. The following reasons are the actions FF acted
during the incidents were violates under the Anti- Sexual Harassment Law. FF was an
authority of MM in which he was the Branch Team’s Leader. There was physical form and
verbal harassment acted by the perpetrator in which a malicious touching, overt sexual
advances and verbal demand on sexual favors.

4.) Can LBC be held liable for the crime committed by FF?

Yes, LBC is liable for the crime committed by FF.

Under Section 5 of RA 7877, provides that liability of the Employer, Head of Office,
Educational or Training Institution. The employer or head of office, educational or training
institution shall be solidarily liable for damages arising from the acts of   sexual harassment
committed in the employment, education or training environment if the employer or head of
office, educational or training institution is informed of such acts by the offended party and
no immediate action is taken.

Hence, the LBC still liable to the crime committed by the employee.

2.) While a person was passing through a construction site for a new building, construction
worker CC shouted – “Hoy Bakla, halika dito at haplusin mo ako; Hoy Bakla ang pangit mo;
Hoy Bakla mura ka pa ring lalaki kahit ano pa ang gagawin ko.”
The person victimized by these remarks asked you, was a crime committed by the worker
who uttered the remarks? Explain briefly.

The crime committed by the construction worker who CC uttered is a crime of Violation of
RA 11313 of Safe Spaces Act.

Under Article 1 Sec. 4 of the Safe Spaces Act, provides that Gender-Based Streets and
Public Spaces Sexual Harassment. – The crimes of gender-based streets and public spaces
sexual harassment are committed through any unwanted and uninvited sexual actions or
remarks against any person regardless of the motive for committing such action or remarks.

Gender-based streets and public spaces sexual harassment includes catcalling, wolf-
whistling, unwanted invitations, misogynistic, transphobic, homophobic and sexist slurs,
persistent uninvited comments or gestures on a person’s appearance, relentless requests
for personal details, statement of sexual comments and suggestions, public masturbation or
flashing of private parts, groping, or any advances, whether verbal or physical, that is
unwanted and has threatened one’s sense of personal space and physical safety, and
committed in public spaces such as alleys, roads, sidewalks and parks.
 In this case the construction uttered and yelled off a statement against the victim that
violates his individual space and public safety and there was a catcalling happened in
respect to his sexual identity.

3.) In what way is the Anti-sexual harassment act similar to the Safe Spaces Act?

The Anti-sexual harassment law is similar to Safe Spaces Act on protecting rights of
an individual from being sexually harassed by a perpetrator. The former law has a limited
definition of sexual harassment and who can be considered the offender. While the latter
improved upon the previous provisions by recognizing problems that are borne by the signs
of the times and inclusively addressing these problems. 

4.)In what way or ways are the 2 laws different?

Sexual harassment law (RA 7887) focus on the acts or a series of acts involving any
unwelcome sexual advance, request or demand for a sexual favor, or other verbal or
physical behavior of a sexual nature, committed by a government employee or official in a
work-related, training or education related environment. While the Safe Spaces Act (RA
11313) gender-based sexual harassment in public areas such as streets, privately-owned
places opened to the public, and public utility vehicles. It also extends the protection even to
cyberspace and provides prohibited acts.

5.) Can FF in problem 1 and the Construction worker in problem 2 be charged for violation
of both laws?

No, they cannot be charged for the violation of both laws.

FF in problem 1 can be charged on the violation of Sexual Harassment Law since the crime
committed happened in workplace in which both are workers of the same company. There
was an abused of power by FF. It was a work-related or employment environment that the
sexual favor is made a condition in the hiring or in the employment of MM. While problem 2
the construction worker can be charged only with RA 11313 of Safe Spaces Acts under
Article 1, Section 4 Gender-Based Streets and Public Spaces Sexual Harassment. In this
problem, the acts committed by the construction worker was in a public space in which he
sexually harassed the victim uttered an abusive statements that violated on his personal
space and sexual identity.