CASE: Domingo v.

Rayala
G.R. No. 155831
February 18, 2008
FACTS:
Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo, then Stenographic Reporter III at the NLRC, filed a Complaint for sexual
harassment against Rayala before Secretary Bienvenido Laguesma of DOLE. The complaint contains the following
allegations :
Holding and squeezing Domingos 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 sexua lover tones all these acts
of Rayala resound with deafening clarity the unspoken request for a sexual favor.
Upon receipt of the Complaint, DOLE Secretary referred it to the OP, Rayala being a presidential appointee.
The OP,through then Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora, ordered Secretary Laguesma to investigate the allegations
in the Complaint and create a committee for such purpose.
On December 4, 1998, Secretary Laguesma issued Admin. Order. No. 280, Series of 1998, constituting a
Committee on Decorum and Investigation (Committee) in accordance with Republic Act (RA) 7877, the Anti-Sexual
Harassment Act of 1995. The Committee heard the parties and received their respective evidence.
On March 2, 2000, the Committee submitted its report and recommendation to Secretary Laguesma. It found
Rayala guilty of the offense charged and recommended the imposition of the minimum penalty provided under AO 250,
which it erroneously stated as suspension for six (6) months (the correct penalty is 6months and 1 day).Executive
Secretary Zamora, issued AO 119, which dismissed Rayala from service effective upon receipt of the Order. Rayala
filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the OP denied in a Resolution. Under Rule 65, Filed a Petition for Certiorari
and Prohibition with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order. However, it was dismissed for disregarding
the hierarchy of courts. Motion for reconsideration was filed and the case was referred to CA for appropriate action.
CA: Sufficient evidence on record to create moral certainty that Rayala committed the acts he was charged
with.Dismissed for disgraceful and immoral conduct in violation of RA 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for PublicOfficials and Employees.Rayala timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration. CA modified its ruling
in a special division of 5, the penalty of dismissal is DELETED and instead the penalty of suspension from service for
the maximum period of one (1) year is HEREBY IMPOSED upon the petitioner. The rest of the challenged decision
stands.Domingo filed a Petition for Review, but was denied for having a defective verification. MR granted, petition
reinstated. Rayala likewise filed a Petition for Review arguing that he is not guilty of any act of sexual harassment.
Meanwhile, the Republic filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the CA, but was denied.
ISSUES:
W/N Rayala commits sexual harassment.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
Rayala asserts that Domingo has failed to allege and establish any sexual favour, demand or request from
petitioner in exchange for her continued employment or for her promotion. According to Rayala, the acts imputed to
him are without malice or ulterior motive. It was merely Domingos perception of malice and a product of hew own
imagination.
RULING:
YES. Factual findings are conclusive on the SC. And quite significantly, Rayala himself admits to having
committed some of the acts imputed to him.It is noteworthy that the five CA Justices who deliberated on the case were
unanimous in upholding the findings of the Committee and the OP. They found the assessment made by the Committee
and the OP to be a meticulous and dispassionate analysis of the testimonies of the complainant (Domingo), the
respondent (Rayala), and their respective witnesses. They differed only on the appropriate imposable penalty.That
Rayala committed the acts complained of and was guilty of sexual harassment is, therefore, the common factual finding
of not just one, but three independent bodies: the Committee, the OP and the CA. It should be remembered that when
supported by substantial evidence, factual findings made by quasi-judicial and administrative bodies are accorded great
respect and even finality by the courts. The principle, therefore, dictates that such findings should bind us.
Likewise, contrary to Rayalas claim, it is not essential that the demand, request or requirement be made as a
condition for continued employment or for promotion to a higher position. It is enough that the respondents act result
in creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the employee.

CASE:Philippine Aeolus Automotive United Corporation vs. NLRC and Cortez

G.R. No. 124617
April 28, 2000
FACTS:
Rosalinda Cortez was the company nurse at Philippine Aeolus. As early as her first year of employment, her
Plant Manager, William Chua, already manifested a special liking for her, that she was receiving special treatment from
him who would oftentimes invite her for a date, which she would as often refuse. On many occasions, he 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 four (4) years
but she never reciprocated his flirtations, until finally, she noticed that his attitude towards her changed. He 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 when he started harassing her. She just found out one day that 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. The company then dismissed her for throwing a stapler and throwing invectives,
among others, at her Plant Manager, Chua. Rosalinda, thereafter, filed an illegal dismissal case and explained that the
incident arose when she had been trying to refuse the sexual advances of Chua. The Labor Arbiter and the National
Labor Relations Commission ruled in her favor, holding that the dismissal was illegal and ordering the company to pay
her moral damages. The corporation elevated the case on certiorari to the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of
discretion.
ISSUE:
W/N NLRC gravely abused its discretion in holding as illegal the dismissal of private respondent (Cortez) and W/N she
is entitled to damages in the event that the illegality of her dismissal is sustained
RULING:
The Supreme Court declared Rosalindas dismissal illegal and affirmed the award of moral damages. It did not
give merit to the companys argument that it is unbelievable that it took her four (4) years before she reacted violently in
defense of her womanhood. The court recognized Mr. Chuas acts as sexual harassment and explained that there is no
time period for reporting such crime saying:
Public respondent in thus concluding appears baffled why it took private respondent more than four (4) years
to expose William Chuas alleged sexual harassment. It reasons out that it would have been more prepared to support
her position if her act of throwing the stapler and uttering invectives on William Chua were her immediate reaction to
his amorous overtures. In that case, according to public respondent, she would have been justified for such outburst
because she would have been merely protecting her womanhood, her person and her rights.
We are not persuaded. The gravamen of the offense in sexual harassment is not the violation of the employees
sexuality but the abuse of power by the employer. Any employee, male or female, may rightfully cry foul provided
the claim is well substantiated. Strictly speaking, there is no time period within which he or she is expected to complain
through the proper channels. The time to do so may vary depending upon the needs, circumstances, and more
importantly, the emotional threshold of the employee.
Private respondent admittedly allowed four (4) years to pass before finally coming out with her employers
sexual impositions. Not many women, especially in this country, are made of the stuff that can endure the agony and
trauma of a public, even corporate, scandal. If petitioner corporation had not issued the third memorandum that
terminated the services of private respondent, we could only speculate how much longer she would keep her silence.
Moreover, few persons are privileged indeed to transfer from one employer to another. The dearth of quality
employment has become a daily monster roaming the streets that one may not be expected to give up ones
employment easily but to hang on to it, so to speak, by all tolerable means. Perhaps, to private respondents mind, for as
long as she could outwit her employers ploys she would continue on her job and consider them as mere occupational
hazards. This uneasiness in her place of work thrived in an atmosphere of tolerance for four (4) years, and one could
only imagine the prevailing anxiety and resentment, if not bitterness, that beset her all that time. But William Chua
faced reality soon enough. Since he had no place in private respondents heart, so must she have no place in his office.

So, he provoked her, harassed her, and finally dislodged her; and for finally venting her pent-up anger for years, he
found the perfect reason to terminate her.
Sexual harassment is an imposition of misplaced superiority which is enough to dampen an employees spirit
in her capacity for advancement. It affects her sense of judgment. It changes her life, if for this alone private respondent
should be adequately compensated.