Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Digest Anti Sexual Harassment
Case Digest Anti Sexual Harassment
7877]
The Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, also known as Republic Act No.
7877, is a Philippine law that seeks to protect individuals from sexual
harassment in various settings, including the workplace, educational
institutions, and other establishments. This legislation was enacted to
promote gender equality, uphold human dignity, and provide a safe and
conducive environment for all individuals, regardless of their gender.
Case No. 1
SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
Case:
This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure filed by petitioner Jose Romeo C. Escandor
(Escandor). He prays for the reversal of the assailed October 17, 2013
Decision3 and February 28, 2014 Resolution4 of the Special Third Division
of the Sandiganbayan. The assailed Decision found Escandor guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense of sexual harassment as penalized by the
Anti-Sexual Harassment Act. The assailed Resolution, denied Escandor's
Motion for Reconsideration.
Facts:
Jose Romeo Escandor, the Regional Director of the National Economic and
Development Authority (NEDA) Region 7, Cebu City, was accused of
violating the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995. It was alleged that he
made unwelcome sexual advances and demands from Cindy Sheila
Cobarde-Gamallo, a contractual employee of the NEDA and Escandor’s
subordinate.
Issues:
Ruling:
SUPREME COURT
Baguio City
SECOND DIVISION
Case:
Facts:
Issues:
Ruling:
The CSC found, as did the CA, that even without an explicit demand from
petitioner his act of mashing the breast of AAA was sufficient to constitute
sexual harassment. Moreover, under Section 3 (b) (4) of RA 7877, sexual
harassment in an education or training environment is committed “when the
sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment
for the student, trainee or apprentice.” AAA even testified that she felt fear at
the time petitioner touched her. It cannot then be said that the CSC lacked
basis for its ruling, when it had both the facts and the law. The CSC found
the evidence presented by the complainant sufficient to support a finding of
grave misconduct. It is basic that factual findings of administrative agencies,
when supported by substantial evidence, are binding upon the Court.
CSC, it is clear that there is misconduct on the part of petitioner. The term
“misconduct” denotes intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule
of law or standard of behavior.
Petitioner was not denied due process of law, contrary to his claims. The
essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or, as applied
to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side or an
opportunity to seek for a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained
of. These elements are present in this case, where petitioner was properly
informed of the charge and had a chance to refute it, but failed.
Case No. 3
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
EN BANC
Case:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the April 25, 2005 decision3 and
August 4, 2005 resolution4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
81107. The parties to this case are employees of the Municipality of Diadi,
Nueva Vizcaya (the LGU). Petitioner Teresita G. Narvasa is a senior
bookkeeper while respondent Benjamin A. Sanchez, Jr. is the municipal
assessor. The instant case stemmed from three cases of sexual harassment
filed separately against respondent by petitioner along with Mary Gay P. de
la Cruz and Zenaida M. Gayaton, who are also employees of the LGU.
Facts:
The case stemmed from three cases of sexual harassment filed separately
against respondent by petitioner along with Mary Gay P. de la Cruz and
Zenaida M. Gayaton, who are also employees of the LGU.
Gayaton received a text message while she was passing respondent’s car in
front of the municipal hall. The message said, “Pauwi ka na ba sexy?”
Gayaton later verified through respondent’s clerk, Alona Agas, that the
sender of the message was respondent. Gayaton eventually received several
messages from respondent stating: “I like you”; “Have a date with me”;
“Don’t tell to others that I told that I like you because nakakahiya”;
“Puso mo to pag bigay moto sakin, I would be very happy” and “I slept and
dreamt nice things about you.”
On appeal, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) passed only on the decision
in the case filed by petitioner since, under the CSC rules, the penalty of
reprimand and/or suspension of not more than 30 days cannot be appealed.
The CSC dismissed the appeal but modified the Mayor’s order by holding
respondent guilty of grave misconduct instead of grave sexual harassment.
The same penalty of dismissal from the service, however, was meted out to
respondent.
Issue:
Whether the acts committed by respondent against petitioner (since the CSC
resolution only touched upon petitioner’s complaint) constitute simple
misconduct or grave misconduct?
Held:
The Supreme Court disagreed with the CA that neither corruption, clear
intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established rule attended
the incident in question. RA 7877, the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995,
took effect on March 5, 1995. Respondent was charged with knowledge of
the existence of this law and its contents, more so because he was a public
servant
OPINION ABOUT THE CASES REGARDING THE LAW
The Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, also known as Republic Act No.
7877, was enacted in the Philippines with the primary objective of
addressing and preventing sexual harassment in the workplace. This
legislation has been in place for over two decades, and it is crucial to assess
whether it is still effective and, if necessary, determine if amendments are
needed.