Uchiberate consideration for the administration of justice is more important than race to end a trial. We likewise find no merit in Favila and Asproc’s argument regarding the composition uf the Committee. The Conutittee notes as follaws: a The Committee was organized as a result of the charges of sexual harassine ane in compliance with | Sexual Harassment Lavy exjuirements af the Anti b. While the Company's Code uf Conduct de Specitic procedure in investigating, a sexual harassnient casey it ie hol precluded front looking, at the Anti-Seaual Harassment Lav fer guidance in order to establish a just ancl leyal framework te male its eletormination, NOL provide tor a © Section | (b) of the AntiSexual Harassment Law provides that where the sexual harassment is alleged to Have uccurtedl in work place, the investigating committer 4 least one (1) representitive each Irom the ma i any, the employees tram the supervisor all be composed at at ement, the anion, rou andl from the tankarnbfile employees, Here, the Committee is compost of at least une (1) representative from management, the supervsers and the rank-and-file employees. There ig nothings in the law thet prohibits the Company trom increasing, the cammittes membership, provided that the minimum composition mandated by law is complied with, Ai The NES also talk about violations of the Code of Conduct, as well as Serious Misconduct and Loss of Confidence under the Fabor Code. The Company, in the exercise ol management sliscretion, andl tor Uhis ease only, has also tasked the Committee te investigate these charges. For this reason, our findings andl recommendation alsy cover these other charges eo The Anti-Sexual Harassment Law does not make the filing, uf a wany statement a pre-condition for the commencement af an ntate Proseettors va Prec 11, 199sthat bation. th fact, the law does not requine a Particular torn se thal a complaint tor Sexual Harassnuent vay be acted upon, There is no merit to Favila's andl Aspree’s clalins vither that they were lepeived of their right to due process when Whey were prevented from cross Gaming, Fullido. “Contrary to their arguinent the right (0 cross-examine: jiinesses is ol an indispensable requivement of dre Process in administrative cares, The deyree of evidence requireal in administrative procevdings 1s substantial evidence, which hax boon selinel a8 such amount uf relevant weidenee as a reasonable mind might secepl as adequate to support vonelusion, Finally, we dismiss the suggestion that conversations which might have taken place outside of the hearings, ard involving other employees of the Hambans sith the parties and/or their witnussee, were inappropriate. We believe that the conten! of these conversations assuming they happened, were fade in an cttort to explore the possibility of gy ainicable setlement. ‘This, we think, is consistent with the ubjective of superiors and co-workers to resale disputes amicably Substantive A. The NTE against Bavila 1. Sema! Hanssinent The first issue is whether or int Kavita violated the AntiSexual Harassment Law. Section 3 of the law provides: Fe en athe EAtueation or Truiningeretated sual Harassment Detined, - Work, education ut Waining-related sexual harassment is committed by an empluyer, manager, superviser, nelwr, instructur, professor, evach, trsimon, agent of the employer, oF any other person ash, having authority, influence or moral aweendaney ever another ina work ur raining, or education favironment, demands, rexuests ur atherwise requires any sexual 2 pial Cova€ ola Mattes Phi hi GE Nea Jun. 10, 2004 "Damasi BY NRCG NG TSUN, Sept i, dothy{aver ont the other, regalless of whether the demand, Fequest or “earentent for submission is accepted by the ubject of sald Net () In a work-related or er harassment is committed when: ployment environment, sexual (1) The se the employment, re-employment or continued employment of said 1 Lavor is tate asa condition in the hieinye we in inslividual, or in granting said individual favoratie compensation, [cre conditions, promotions, oF privileyes! or thn ra sal lo pyran favor results in limiting, seprexating. or classilving, the cemployee which in a way woukl discriminate, deprive or diminish employawnt opportunities or athe the sexu vise adversely affect saiel employee; (2) The above acts woult impair the employes Fights or Privileges under existing labor laws; or @) The above acts would cesult iy an intimicating, hostile, or ollensive environment for the employee.” Theclements of sexual harassinent in the workplace, thus, sire as Follows (1) The employer, employee, manager Supervisar, apent al the employes, or any other person hu authority: intiwers er moral ascendancy over another; (2) The authority, influence om moral ascendaney: exists in o working environment (1) The employer, employee, manayer, supervise, agentol the emplaver or any ather person having autherity, tlle moral Sscenddariey makes a demand, reqsiest ar requirement oF a sexual Javon. {is not necussary that the demand, rquest up Fequirement of a sexual Lavur be articulated in categorical oral ar written stat ment. However, it is aschiiol that i be Ulseurrwa with equal verthude from theme of the offend 1A © cota AML Neu CPANEL Ap oth *Ravala s Donning G.I Ne ISS, bate Lt mw