Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Domingo v. Rayala
Domingo v. Rayala
Domingo v. Rayala
RAYALA
G.R. No. 155831, etc.
February 18, 2008
Ma.
Lourdes
T.
Domingo, et al.
petitioners
responden Rogelio I. Ralaya, et al.
J. Nachura
Cadorna
ts
summary NLRC Chairman is charged for sexual harassment because of certain acts he
Petitioner Domingo (Domingo), then Stenographic Reporter III at the NLRC, filed a complaint
for sexual harassment against Respondent Rayala (Rayala) before the SOLE. At the time, Rayala
was the NLRC Chairman and Domingo was working directly under him.
Domingos complaint was predicated on AO 250, the IRR of RA 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment
in Employment, etc.). To support her complaint, she executed an affidavit narrating the
incidences of sexual harassment complained of. (A/N: medyo mahaba kaya di ko na nilagay,
basahin niyo na lang juicy naman eh haha) of
SOLE referred the complaint to the OP, Rayala being a presidential appointee. After an
investigation ordered by the OP where the parties were heard and their respective evidence
received, Rayala was found guilty of the offense charged, with the recommendation that a
suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day, in accordance with AO 250, be imposed
upon him.
Upon receiving the recommendation of the SOLE, the OP issued AO 119, which affirmed the
finding of Rayalas guilt. However, the penalty was modified into one of dismissal,
considering the gravity of the offense and the nature of Rayalas office.
The case reached the CA, which affirmed the OP, pointing out that Rayala was dismissed for
disgraceful and immoral conduct in violation of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officials and Employees). Upon Rayalas MR however, the CA modified its decision
by deleting the order dismissing Rayala from service and substituting it with one
penalizing him with suspension for the maximum period of one (1) year.
This led to the filing of the three instant petitions for review where: (1) Domingo questions the
downgrading of the penalty; (2) Rayala contests the finding of guilt and prays that he be totally
exonerated; and (3) the Republic also questions the downgrading.
issue
ratio
Substantial evidence exist to prove that Rayala committed the acts complained of
All three independent bodies (the Committee formed by SOLE, OP and CA) found that Rayala committed the acts
complained of. These findings, supported by substantial evidence are accorded great respect and even finality by the
courts, there being no valid ground calling for their review.
2. The proper penalty is suspension for the maximum period of one (1) year
Applicable penalty is only suspension because this is Rayalas first offense
Under AO 250, Sec. 22(o), Rule XVI of the IRR of Revised Administrative Code, and Sec. 52
A(15) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the penalty for
the first offense is suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year, while
the penalty for the second offense is dismissal.
2