Doctrines on Sexual

Harassment Cases
 Agenda
Meet the presenter​

Background​

Breakout questions​

Hypothesis​

Making great products​

Comparing Contoso to the competition​

History ​

Key takeaways​

Tips for businesses​

Call to action

8/05/20XX C O N F E R E N C E P R E S E N TAT I O N 2
Villarama vs Golden Donuts (GR 106341, 2 September 1994)
Sexual Harassment a valid ground for dismissal even before the passage of RA 7877

A male manager invited all the female employees for a dinner.

When the group parted ways, the male manager offered to bring
one of the female employee home, but the latter was in great
shock when she found out that the former was driving toward a
motel, instead of her house.

The Supreme Court ruled that as a managerial employee, he is

bound by a more exacting work ethic. However, he failed to
live up to this higher standard of responsibility when he
succumbed to his moral perversity. And when such moral
perversity is perpetrated against his subordinate, he provides
justifiable ground for his dismissal for lack of trust and
confidence. The Court added that “it is reprehensible enough but
more so when inflicted by those with moral ascendancy over the
victims.”
 MA. LOURDES DOMINGO v.
ROGELIO I. RAYALA
G.R. No. 155831, 18 February 2008 ​

Totality of behavior
In a landmark case against the then NLRC Chairman no less, he
argued that he did not make any demand, request, or requirement
of a sexual favor and thus he is not guilty of sexual harassment.

According to the Court, it is not necessary that a demand,

request or requirement be articulated in categorical oral or
written statement. It may be discerned, with equal certitude,
from the acts of the offender. Holding and squeezing of shoulders,
running fingers across neck and tickling ear, initiating conversations
with sexual overtones – all these acts resound with deafening clarity the
unspoken for a sexual favor.
Phil Aelous Automotive United Corp v. NLRC (GR 106341, 2 September 1994)
Misplaced superiority
Rosalinda was terminated by the Company after ignoring notices about
her serious misconduct, particularly, for throwing a stapler at her Plant
Manager William, her superior, and uttering invectives against him.
Rosalinda averted that she only defended herself as William would
usually 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 maltreatment and sexual advances have been recurring for 4 years
but she never reciprocated his flirtations, until finally, she noticed that
his attitude towards her changed. William made her understand that if
she would not give in to his sexual advances, he would cause her
termination from the service; and he made good his threat.
In this case, the Court ruled in favor of Rosalinda saying that her
dismissal is illegal. The Court stressed that sexual harassment is an
imposition of misplaced "superiority" which is enough to dampen
an employee's spirit in her capacity for advancement.
 LBC EXPRESS-VIS, INC. v. PALCO
G.R. No. 217101, 12 February 2020 ​

Constructive Dismissal
Failure of LBC to act within ten (10) days
Even if LBC had no participation in the sexual harassment, it had
been informed of the incident. Despite this, it failed to take
immediate action on Palco’s complaint. LBC’s delay in acting on
the case showed its insensibility, indifference, and disregard
for its employees’ security and welfare. This indifference to
complaints of sexual harassment victims is a ground for
constructive dismissal. Here, it cannot be denied that Palco was
compelled to leave her employment because of the hostile and
offensive work environment created and reinforced by Batucan
and LBC, making LBC solidarily liable for damages for not
taking immediate action on the sexual harassment incident.
WATERFRONT CEBU CITY v LEDESMA (G.R. No. 197556 March 25, 2015)
Management acted immediately and showed support until all remedies were exhausted
The Supreme Court (SC) favored the decision of a Waterfront Hotel in
Cebu City when it fired its then house detective Ledesma for
allegedly sexually harassing two women, a lady supplier of a hotel
concessionaire and a female job applicant.

Ledesma then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Labor Arbiter

ruled in favor of him but was then reversed by NLRC on Waterfront’s
initiative to appeal. Ledesma appealed to the CA which ruled in favor
of him. Finally, SC granted Waterfront’s petition for review saying the
dismissal of Ledesma was with just cause because he committed
misconduct or improper behavior.

The SC emphasized that if not for the position of Ledesma as a house

detective, he will not have access to the conference room nor will he
know that the premises is not monitored by a closed-circuit television,
thus, giving him the untrammeled opportunity to accomplish his lewd
design on the unsuspecting victims.
 FORMANTES v. DUNCAN
PHARMACEUTICALS
G.R. No. 170661, 04 December 2009 ​

Workplace Sexual Harassment outside office

Management forgot to observe procedural due process

Petitioner Ramon Formantes, an acting district manager of

respondent Duncan Pharmaceuticals Phils., Inc. was dismissed
from service due to his attempt to sexually force himself upon his
subordinate, a medical representative. The incident happened
when he went to her subordinate’s house to fetch some work
papers.

He contested his dismissal, reasoning that the ground for his

dismissal is different from that alleged in the notice of his
termination, which were failure to report to the office, failure to
submit reports and failure to file written explanation despite
repeated instructions
 FORMANTES v. DUNCAN
PHARMACEUTICALS
G.R. No. 170661, 04 December 2009 ​

Workplace Sexual Harassment outside office

Management forgot to observe procedural due process
Although petitioner was dismissed from work by the respondent
on the ground of insubordination, this court cannot close its eyes
to the fact that the ground of sexual abuse committed against
petitioner’s subordinate actually exists and was established by
substantial evidence before the labor arbiter.
The Court explained that as a manager, he enjoyed the full trust
and confidence of respondent and his subordinates. By
committing sexual abuse against his subordinate, he clearly
demonstrated his lack of fitness to continue working as a
managerial employee and deserves the punishment of
dismissal from the service.
 FORMANTES v. DUNCAN
PHARMACEUTICALS
G.R. No. 170661, 04 December 2009 ​

Workplace Sexual Harassment outside office

Management forgot to observe procedural due process
On a final note, employers must still comply with procedural
due process in dismissing employees for their sexually harassing
conduct against a colleague. This process includes (i) service of a
notice to explain; (ii) giving the alleged offender ample
opportunity to be heard; and (iii) service of notice of
termination/imposition of disciplinary sanctions.
An employee’s removal for valid cause (such as sexual harassment)
but without complying with the proper procedure does not
constitute illegal dismissal but obligates the erring employer to pay
nominal damages to the employee, as penalty for not complying with
the procedural requirements.
Escandor v People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 211962, 06 July 2020)
Safe Spaces Act vis-à-vis Anti-Sexual Harassment
The Safe Spaces Act does not undo or abandon the definition of sexual
harassment under the Anti-Sexual Harassment Law of 1995. The gravamen
of the offenses punished under the Safe Spaces Act is the act of sexually
harassing a person on the basis of the his/her sexual orientation, gender
identity and/or expression, while that of the offense punished under the
Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 is the abuse of one's authority,
influence, or moral ascendancy so as to enable the sexual harassment of a
subordinate.

* Under RA 7877, only persons in authority could be charged as offenders.

There are no provisions for harassment by subordinates or peers.

** With the enactment of RA 11313, anyone can be an offender .

 Thank you

8/05/20XX 12