CARLOS G. LIBRES v. NLRC, GR No.

123737, 1999-05-28
Facts:
Petitioner Carlos G. Libres, an electrical engineer, was holding a managerial position with
National Steel Corporation (NSC) as Assistant Manager.
he received a Notice of Investigation from Assistant Vice President Isidro F. Hynson Jr., his
immediate superior,... requesting him to submit a written explanation relative to the charge of
sexual harassment made by Susan D. Capiral, Hynson's secretary
The notice also warned... him that failure to file his written explanation would be construed
as a waiver of his right to be heard. On 14 August 1993 petitioner submitted his written
explanation denying the accusation against him and offering to submit himself for
clarificatory interrogation.
Hynson Jr. conducted an internal investigation to which Libres and Capiral were invited to
ventilate their respective sides of the issue.
The MEC, after deliberation, concluded that the charges against petitioner constituted a
violation of Item 2, Table V, of the Plant's Rules and Regulations.[1] It opined that "touching
a female subordinate's hand and shoulder, caressing her nape and... telling other people
that Capiral was the one who hugged and kissed or that she responded to the sexual
advances are unauthorized acts that damaged her honor."... the MEC finally concluded that
petitioner's acts clearly constituted sexual harassment as charged and recommended
petitioner's suspension for thirty (30) days without pay.
petitioner wrote Melchor Q. Villamor, Vice President for Manufacturing, requesting
reconsideration of his suspension, but the same was denied. On 12 February 1994 the
suspension order was finally implemented.
Libres filed a complaint for illegal suspension and unjust discrimination against respondent
NSC and its officers, private respondents herein, before the Labor Arbiter. Citing the failure
of the MEC to grant him audience despite his offer to... answer clarificatory questions,...
Labor Arbiter Nicodemus G. Palangan however ruled that due process was properly
observed
Petitioner argues that the issue of sexual harassment was not adequately considered as he
noted that the finding of the NLRC was made without proper basis in fact and in law. He
maintains that the NLRC merely adopted the conclusions of the Labor Arbiter
He argues strongly that in rejecting his plea, the MEC clearly denied him an opportunity to
be heard and present his... side.
Petitioner assails the failure of the NLRC to strictly apply RA No. 7877 to the instant case.
We note however, that petitioner never raised the applicability of the law in his appeal to the
NLRC nor in his motion for reconsideration. Issues or arguments must chiefly be raised...
before the court or agency concerned so as to allow it to pass upon and correct its mistakes
without the intervention of a higher court.
Issues:
issue of sexual harassment was not adequately considered
As regards his assertion that he was not afforded due process, petitioner would point to his
demand for personal confrontation which was brushed aside by the MEC.
Ruling:
Republic Act No. 7877 was not yet in effect at the time of the occurrence of the act
complained of
Hence, the Labor Arbiter have to rely on the MEC report and the common connotation of
sexual harassment as it is generally understood by the public... the NLRC did not commit
any abuse of discretion in affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
As a managerial employee, petitioner is bound by more exacting work ethics.
Public respondent therefore is correct in its observation that the Labor Arbiter was in fact
lenient in his application of the law and jurisprudence for which petitioner must be grateful
and... not gripe against.
Petitioner further claims that the delay in instituting the complaint shows that it was only an
afterthought. We disagree. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, it could be expected
since Libres was Capiral's immediate superior. Fear of retaliation and backlash, not to
forget... the social humiliation and embarrassment
Petitioner Libres never questioned the veracity of Capiral's... allegations. In fact his narration
even corroborated the latter's assertion in several material points. He only raised issue on
the complaint's protracted filing.
On the question of due process, we find that the requirements thereof were sufficiently
complied with.
It is undeniable that petitioner was given a Notice of Investigation informing him of the
charge of sexual harassment as well as advising him to submit a written explanation
regarding the matter; that he submitted his written explanation to his... superior... petition is
DISMISSED
Principles: