Case Assailant Victim/s Acts perpetrated Ruling

RE: ANONYMOUS Atty. Cresencio P. Co Antoinette Toyco (Toyco), Toyco: romantic messages Suspension from practice of law for 5 years and 10 years from teaching law in any school.
COMPLAINT AGAINST Untian, Jr. Christina Sagarbarria Sagarbarria: nude photo
ATTY. CRESENCIO P. CO -Law Professor (Sagarbarria) and Lea Dal Dal: “Come again?” R.A. No. 7877 defines education related sexual harassment as sexual harassment committed
UNTIAN, JR. (Dal) by a teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainer or any other person who, having authority,
-Students of Xavier influence or moral ascendancy over another in an education environment, demands, requests
University or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the same is accepted
by the object of the act.

Sec. 3 Civil Service Commission (CSC) in CSC Resolution No. 01-0940 defined the
administrative offense of sexual harassment in an educational environment as existing when:
(1) submission to or rejection of the act or series of acts is used as a basis for any decision
affecting the complainant, including, but not limited to, the giving of a grade the granting
of honors or a scholarship, the payment of a stipend or allowance, or the giving of any
benefit, privilege or consideration

(2) the act or series of acts have the purpose or effect of interfering with the performance, or
creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive academic environment of the complainant;
or
(3) the act or series of acts might reasonably be expected to cause discrimination, insecurity,
discomfort, offense or humiliation to a complainant who may be a trainee, apprentice,
intern, tutee or ward of the person complained of.

R.A. No. 7877 does not require that the victim had acceded to the sexual desires of the abuser.
Further, it is not necessary that a demand or request for sexual favor is articulated in a categorical
manner as it may be discerned from the acts of the offender. In addition, sexual harassment is
also committed in an educational environment when the sexual advances result in an
intimidating, hostile or offensive environment. In short, it is not necessary that there was
an offer for sex for there to be sexual harassment as a superior's conduct with sexual
underpinnings, which offends the victim or creates a hostile environment would suffice.

Clearly, respondent abused the power and authority he possessed over the complainants. His
sexually laced conduct had created a hostile and offensive environment which deeply prejudiced
his students. In what was supposed to be a safe place for them to learn and develop, they were
instead subjected to unwarranted sexual advances.
ATTY. JACINTO C. Atty. Jacinto C. Gonzales Atty. Maila Clemen F. Kissing incident inside a Suspension of six (6) months without pay, and with a stern warning that a repetition of the
GONZALES, Petitioner, -Legal Division Chief Serrano restaurant: "Ang sarap pala same offense shall be punished with dismissal from the service.
vs. -Subordinate ng labi ni Maila..."
MAILA CLEMEN F. Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly,
SERRANO, Respondent. unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. The misconduct is considered as grave
if it involves additional elements such as corruption or willful intent to violate the law or to
disregard established rules, which must be proven by substantial evidence; otherwise, the
misconduct is only simple. Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of
an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to
procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of
others. In other words, in grave misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate
the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be evident.

In this case, the Court finds the element of corruption present. As correctly pointed out by
the CA, petitioner used his position and authority as Head of the Legal Division of PHILRACOM, as
well as his moral ascendancy, to elicit sexual favors and to indulge in sexually malicious acts from
his respondent, his female subordinate. Further, respondent was charged with knowledge of the
existence of this law and its contents, more so because he was a public servant. His act of grabbing
petitioner and attempting to kiss her without her consent was an unmistakable manifestation of
his intention to violate laws that specifically prohibited sexual harassment in the work
environment. Assuming arguendo that respondent never intended to violate RA 7877, his attempt
to kiss petitioner was a flagrant disregard of a customary rule that had existed since time
immemorial – that intimate physical contact between individuals must be consensual.
Respondent’s defiance of custom and lack of respect for the opposite sex were more appalling
because he was a married man. Respondent’s act showed a low regard for women and disrespect
for petitioner’s honor and dignity.

Side note: There is a reduction of penalty. WHY?

The Court finds that the sexual harassment offense petitioner committed falls under less grave offenses
which is analogous to "unwanted touching or brushing against a victim’s body", and to "derogatory or
degrading remarks or innuendoes directed toward the members of one sex", with the corresponding
maximum penalty of six (6) months suspension without pay.

The Court notes that the Deputy Overall Ombudsman was correct in appreciating the following mitigating
circumstances in determining the imposable penalty, to wit: (1) petitioner's weak physical condition and (2)
commission of the offense in a public place and in the presence of their office mates. However, the said
Ombudsman gravely erred in failing to consider the following aggravating circumstances: (1) taking undue
advantage of official position; (2) taking undue advantage of subordinate; and (3) education. As the Head of
the Legal Department of PHILRACOM and the direct superior of respondent, petitioner's act of forcibly
kissing her lips and saying "Ang sarap pala ng labi ni Maila x x x" in front of their office mates, smacks of bad
faith, abuse of official position, flagrant disregard of the anti-sexual harassment law, and willful violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Under Section 54 (d) of the URACCS, where more aggravating
circumstances are present than mitigating ones, the maximum penalty shall be imposed. Hence, the Court
imposes the penalty of suspension of six (6) months without pay.
TERESITA G. NARVASA, Benjamin A. Sanchez, Jr.: Teresita G. Narvasa: senior Teresita G. Narvasa:
Petitioner, municipal assessor bookkeeper Benjamin pulled her
vs. Mary Gay P. de la Cruz and towards him and attempted
BENJAMIN A. SANCHEZ, Zenaida M. Gayaton: to kiss her
JR.,1 Respondent employees of the LGU.
Mary Gay P. de la Cruz: note
saying, "Gay, I like you."
Zenaida M. Gayaton:
whispered Oy flawless,
pumanaw ka met ditan
while pinching her upper
left arm near the shoulder
in a slow manner (plus
several text messages)
Guilty of grave misconduct plus dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement
benefits except accrued leave credits
Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of
behavior. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected
with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. In grave misconduct,
as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the
law or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be manifest.
We disagree with the CA that neither corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant
disregard of an established rule attended the incident in question. RA14 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. His act of
grabbing petitioner and attempting to kiss her without her consent was an unmistakable
manifestation of his intention to violate laws that specifically prohibited sexual
harassment in the work environment. (element no. 2 hehehe) Assuming arguendo that
respondent never intended to violate RA 7877, his attempt to kiss petitioner was a flagrant
disregard of a customary rule that had existed since time immemorial – that intimate physical
contact between individuals must be consensual. Respondent’s defiance of custom and lack of
respect for the opposite sex were more appalling because he was a married man. Respondent’s
act showed a low regard for women and disrespect for petitioner’s honor and dignity.
The CA, however, interpreted respondent’s repeated apologies to petitioner as an indication of
the absence of intention on his part to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. On the
contrary, such persistent attempts to make peace with petitioner indicated how well respondent
was aware of the gravity of the transgression he had committed. Respondent certainly knew of
the heavy penalty that awaited him if petitioner complained of his aggressive behavior, as she, in
fact, did.
The CA considered respondent’s more than ten years of government service and claim of being
awarded Most Outstanding Municipal Assessor of Region II for three years as mitigating
circumstances. Again, we disagree.
Length of service as a factor in determining the imposable penalty in administrative cases is a
double-edged sword. In fact, respondent’s long years of government service should be seen as a
factor which aggravated the wrong that he committed. Having been in the government service for
so long, he, more than anyone else, should have known that public service is a public trust; that
public service requires utmost integrity and strictest discipline, and, as such, a public servant
must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity.18 Sadly, respondent’s actions
did not reflect the integrity and discipline that were expected of public servants. He failed to live
up to the image of the outstanding and exemplary public official that he was. He sullied
government service instead.
Clerk of Court RODRIGO
RAMOS, JR., Process Server
RAHIM A. ARABANI and
Utility Worker I ABDURAJI
G. BAKIL, all of 4th Shari'a
Circuit Court, Maimbung,
Sulu, and Utility Clerk
SHELDALYN* I. MAHARAN,
5th Shari'a Circuit Court,
Patikul, Sulu, Petitioners,
vs.
JUDGE BENSAUDI A.
ARABANI, JR., 4th Shari'a
Circuit Court, Maimbung,
Sulu, Respondent.
JOCELYN DE LEON,
Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. TYRONE PEDREÑA,
Respondent.
Judge Arabani
Atty. Pedreña – PAO Lawyer Jocelyn de Leon - client
Sheldalyn: court employee He asked her to accompany
him on his motorcycle to go
around town, professing his
love and buying her gifts. At
one time, Judge Arabani
made a drawing of a vagina
and a penis and tried to
show it to Sheldalyn.
He persisted in trying to get
hold of my hand and he also
tried very hard to inserting
(sic) his finger into my
firmly closed hand. Thus, I
became very afraid and at
the same time offended for
his lack of respect for me at
that moment; 9. Despite my
resistance, he continued
rubbing my left leg. I was
then attempting to remove
his hand on my leg, but he
grabbed my hand and
forced it to put (sic) on his
penis
SUSPENDED for six (6) months without pay
See guide at the bottom (para madali)
Despite his protestations, the charge that Judge Arabani made a drawing of a vagina and a penis,
and thereafter showed it to Sheldalyn was corroborated by Mirad, a disinterested witness, who
categorically declared that it was Judge Arabani who made the drawing, and affirmed that it was
he (Mirad) who crumpled it. The act was enough to create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive
environment for Sheldalyn such that all subsequent interaction with Judge Arabani became
unwelcome on her part. In fact, the substantial evidence on record showed that Sheldalyn became
afraid of Judge Arabani and started to avoid him.
The distasteful act by Judge Arabani of making a drawing of a vagina and a penis, and thereafter
showing it to an employee of the court of which he is an officer constitutes sexual harassment. It
is an act that constitutes a physical behavior of a sexual nature; a gesture with lewd insinuation.
To the Court's mind, Judge Arabani deliberately utilized this form of expression, i.e., drawing, to
maliciously convey to Sheldalyn his sexual desires over her; hence, his conduct cannot be
classified as a mere display of sexually offensive pictures, materials or graffiti under Section 53
(C) (4), Rule X of CSC Resolution No. 01-0940, such as one who is caught watching or reading
pornographic materials. Rather, Judge Arabani's behavior should be classified as an
analogous case (Section 53 [B] [5]) of verbal abuse with sexual overtones under Section 53
(B) (4) of the same issuance, which thus, qualifies the same as a less grave offense.
Suspension from the practice of law for two years
A lawyer who commits overt acts of sexual harassment against a female client is guilty of
reprehensible conduct that is unbecoming of a member of the Bar and may be condignly punished
with suspension from the practice of law.
The records show that Atty. Pedreña rubbed the complainant’s right leg with his hand; tried to
insert his finger into her firmly closed hand; grabbed her hand and forcibly placed it on his crotch
area; and pressed his finger against her private part. Given the circumstances in which he
committed them, his acts were not merely offensive and undesirable but repulsive, disgraceful
and grossly immoral. They constituted misconduct on the part of any lawyer. In this regard, it
bears stressing that immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act,
or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such
scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the community’s sense of decency.
The possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing
requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain membership in the Legal Profession.
Members of the Bar are clearly duty- bound to observe the highest degree of morality and
integrity in order to safeguard the reputation of the Bar. Any errant behavior on the part of a
lawyer that tends to expose a deficiency in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor,
be it in the lawyer’s public or private activities, is sufficient to warrant the lawyer’s suspension or
disbarment. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, provides that a member of the Bar may be
 disbarred or suspended for grossly immoral conduct, or violation of his oath as a lawyer. Towards
that end, we have not been remiss in reminding members of the Bar to live up to the standards
and norms of the Legal Profession by upholding the ideals and principles embodied in the Code
of Professional Responsibility.

Atty. Pedreña’s misconduct was aggravated by the fact that he was then a Public Attorney
mandated to provide free legal service to indigent litigants, and by the fact that De Leon was then
such a client. He also disregarded his oath as a public officer to serve others and to be accountable
at all times, because he thereby took advantage of her vulnerability as a client then in desperate
need of his legal assistance.

Jurisprudence used in determining his penalty:

In Advincula v. Macabata,20 the Court held that the errant lawyer’s acts of turning his client’s head towards
him and then kissing her on the lips were distasteful, but still ruled that such acts, albeit offensive and
undesirable, were not grossly immoral. Hence, the respondent lawyer was merely reprimanded but reminded to
be more prudent and cautious in his dealings with clients.

In Barrientos v. Daarol,21 the respondent lawyer was disbarred, but the severest penalty was imposed not only
because of his engaging in illicit sexual relations, but also because of his deceit. He had been already married
and was about 41 years old when he proposed marriage to a 20-year-old girl. He succeeded in his seduction of
her, and made her pregnant. He not only suggested that she abort the pregnancy, but he also breached his
promise to marry her, and, in the end, even deserted her and their child.

In Delos Reyes v. Aznar,22 the Court adjudged the respondent lawyer, a married man with children, highly
immoral for having taken advantage of his position as the chairman of the College of Medicine of his school in
enticing the complainant, then a student in the college, to have carnal knowledge with him under the threat
that she would flunk in all her subjects should she refuse. The respondent was disbarred for grossly immoral
conduct.

Without diminishing the gravity of the complainant’s sad experience, however, we consider the
acts committed by Atty. Pedreña to be not of the same degree as the acts punished under the cited
judicial precedents. Neither did his acts approximate the act committed by the respondent lawyer
in Calub v. Suller,23 whereby we disbarred the respondent lawyer for raping his neighbor’s wife
notwithstanding that his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt in his criminal
prosecution for the crime. We further note that, unlike in Barrientos where there was deceit and
in Delos Reyes where there were threats and taking advantage of the respondent lawyer’s
position, Atty. Pedreña did not employ any scheme to satiate his lust, but, instead, he desisted
upon the first signs of the complainant’s firm refusal to give in to his advances.
RAMON B. FORMANTES, Ramon B. Formantes: Cynthia Magat: medical Attempt to sexually force CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL from service
Petitioner, Acting District Manager of representative himself upon his
vs. Duncan Pharmaceuticals, subordinate In Villarama v. National Labor Relations Commission,37 wherein a managerial employee
DUNCAN Phils., Inc for the Ilocos committed sexual harassment against his subordinate, the Court held that sexual harassment
PHARMACEUTICALS, District "Cheng, na-e-excite yata ako is a valid cause for separation from service.
PHILS., INC., Respondent. sa iyo."
As a managerial employee, petitioner is bound by a more exacting work ethic. He failed to live up
to this higher standard of responsibility when he succumbed to his moral perversity. And when
"Cheng, na-mimiss lang kita such moral perversity is perpetrated against his subordinate, he provides a justifiable ground for
at ang barkada natin, his dismissal for lack of trust and confidence. It is the right, nay, the duty of every employer to
palambing naman." protect its employees from over sexed superiors.

"Cheng isang kiss lang titigil As a manager, petitioner enjoyed the full trust and confidence of respondent and his subordinates.
na ako." By committing sexual abuse against his subordinate, he clearly demonstrated his lack of fitness to
continue working as a managerial employee and deserves the punishment of dismissal from the
And then he was trying to service.
get in between my legs, but
I kept on kicking him with
my left leg. He was trying to
get my mouth, but I kept on
banging my face on the bed.
By then, my face was full of
his saliva, as he started
kissing the right side of my
face down to the neck. He
then held my left buttock
and held my lower jaw with
his left hand. He squeezed
my left buttock and started
to put his tongue in my
mouth. By now, I could not
shout since he was kissing
my mouth, but before he got
my mouth I told him,
"Monching, don't do this to
me, you are my friend." He
said "I'm also your boss."
Since I was kicking him and
pushing him, I was finally
able to get away from him.
When I stood up, I asked
him "Bakit mo nagawa ito sa
akin, kaibigan kita." He said,
"Cheng, I'm sorry. Nadala
lang ako." He told me not to
tell this to Art, my
counterpart in Baguio. Since
I really wanted to get out of
the house as fast as I could,
so I just said, just don't do it
again. We went out and he
went to La Union."
-pwede na sa MMK
CIVIL SERVICE Peter E. Nierras: Acting Olga C. Oña: secretary of the Around midnight, Oña was Suspension of respondent for six (6) months without pay
COMMISSION, petitioner, General Manager of the Local Water Utilities awakened when Nierras lay
vs. Metro Carigara Water Administration (LWUA) down beside her and crept To better understand the ruling, here are the series of events:
PETER E. NIERRAS, District, Leyte underneath her blanket. To
respondent. her surprise, she saw that 1. Nierras was found guilty of grave misconduct by the CSC with penalty of dismissal
Nierras was half-naked 2. He moved for reconsideration with the CA, which affirmed the decision of the CSC in toto
with his pants already 3. Decision was reversed and a new penalty was meted: six months suspension
unzipped. She tried to run
away but Nierras pulled her Simply put, the question raised could be restated as follows: Did the acts of respondent
and ordered her to go back constitute grave misconduct that warrant his dismissal from the service?
to sleep. It was only when
she screamed "Ayoko, Misconduct refers to intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard
Ayoko, Ayoko!" that Nierras of behavior, especially by a government official. To constitute an administrative offense,
stopped grabbing and misconduct should relate to, or be connected with, the performance of the official functions and
pulling her. duties of a public officer. Grave misconduct is distinguished from simple misconduct in that the
elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule
must be manifest in grave misconduct. (pa-ulit2x)

Otherwise stated, the misconduct is grave if it involves the additional element of

corruption. Corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists of the act of an official or
fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some
benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.

In this case, we find that the element of corruption is absent. Nierras did not use his position
as Acting General Manager of the Metro Carigara Water District in the act of sexually harassing
Oña. In fact, it is established that Nierras and Oña are not employed or connected with the same
agency or instrumentality of the government. While this fact would not negate the possibility that
sexual harassment could be committed by one against the other, the same would not warrant the
dismissal of the offender because he did not use his position to procure sexual favors from Oña.

Under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1994,14 sexual harassment does not
necessarily or automatically constitute "grave misconduct." (boom panis)

Clearly, there is no doubt that the act of Nierras constituted misconduct. However, it would be
inappropriate to impose on him the penalty of dismissal from the service. Section 16, Rule XIV of
the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 provides that in the determination of
penalties to be imposed, mitigating and aggravating circumstances may be considered.15
Considering the fact that this is the first time that Nierras is being administratively charged, it
would be too harsh to impose on him the penalty of dismissal outright. Worth noting, in the case
of Civil Service Commission v. Belagan, although the Court found that the act of the offending
public official constituted grave misconduct, still it did not impose the penalty of dismissal on him,
considering the fact that it was his first offense.
DIOSCORO F. BACSIN, Dioscoro F. Bacsin: teacher Eduardo O. Wahiman: Bacsin asked her to come
petitioner, father of AAA (molested closer, and when she did,
vs. student) held her hand, then touched
EDUARDO O. WAHIMAN, and fondled her breast. She
respondent. stated that he fondled her
breast five times, and that
she felt afraid.3 A classmate
of hers, one Vincent B.
Sorrabas, claiming to have
witnessed the incident,
testified that the fondling
incident did happen just as
AAA related it.
ERLIND A. ALCUIZAR, Judge Carpio Court Stenographer Erlind 1. While inside the
complainant, A. Alcuizar comfort room (CR)
vs. washing a Investigating Justice submitted her Report dated June 2, 2006. In it, she recommended that
JUDGE EMMANUEL C. dishware, she was
CARPIO, ATTY. kissed by
CRISOSTOMO S.J. UGALI, JR, respondent judge
and MRS. DIVINAGRACIA
BARCELONA, respondents. 2. Respondent judge
tried to kiss her
while she was
Dismissal
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner could be guilty of acts of sexual harassment, grave
misconduct, which was different from or an offense not alleged in the formal charge filed
against him at the inception of the administrative case
Petitioner argues that the CSC cannot validly adjudge him guilty of an offense, such as "Grave
Misconduct (Acts of Sexual Harassment)," different from that specified in the formal charge which
was "Misconduct." He further argues that the offense of "Misconduct" does not include the graver
offense of "Grave Misconduct."
This argument is unavailing. In grave misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to
violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule must be manifest. The act of petitioner of
fondling one of his students is against a law, RA 7877, and is doubtless inexcusable. The
particular act of petitioner cannot in any way be construed as a case of simple misconduct.
Sexually molesting a child is, by any norm, a revolting act that it cannot but be categorized
as a grave offense. Parents entrust the care and molding of their children to teachers, and expect
them to be their guardians while in school. Petitioner has violated that trust. The charge of grave
misconduct proven against petitioner demonstrates his unfitness to remain as a teacher and
continue to discharge the functions of his office.
As taken from the basis of CSC and CA’s ruling:
The formal charge, while not specifically mentioning RA 7877, The Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of
1995, imputes on the petitioner acts covered and penalized by said law. Contrary to the argument of
petitioner, the demand of a sexual favor need not be explicit or stated. In Domingo v. Rayala, it was
held, "It is true that this provision calls for a ‘demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor.’ But
it is not necessary that the demand, request, or requirement of a sexual favor be articulated in a
categorical oral or written statement. It may be discerned, with equal certitude, from the acts of the
offender." 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
"(w)hen 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.
According sa:
respondent judge be adjudged guilty of sexual harassment under of Republic Act No. 7877,10
Section 3, work related sexual harassment. (See guide sa baba)
Pero sabi ng Court:
The Court is unable to agree with the recommendation and the premises and findings holding it
together.
 transcribing notes
in the staff room
after office hours
3. There were
instances when
respondent judge
would touch her
legs and give her a
wink.
4. There were times
when respondent
judge would place
his gun on top of
her table which
would give her a
scare.
ATTY. GRACE M. VELOSO Judge Caminade Atty. Veloso,: lawyer of the While discussing the case,
AND MA. JOEYLYNN B. Public Attorney’s Office she was stunned when
QUIÑONES, complainants, (PAO) Judge Caminade suddenly
vs. placed his hand on her right
JUDGE ANACLETO M. thigh and squeezed it. He
CAMINADE, RTC, Branch 6, then took her hand and
Cebu City, respondent kissed it. She immediately
stood up and headed
towards the door leading to
the staff room. He, however,
caught up with her and
placed his hand on her
shoulder. Before she could
open the door, Judge
Caminade told her "Kiss ko
bi" (Let me kiss you). Atty.
Veloso, who was so
We start off with the matter of proof. In administrative or disciplinary proceedings, the burden of
proving the allegations in the complaint rests on the complainant. While substantial evidence
would ordinarily suffice to support a finding of guilt, the rule is a bit different where the
proceedings involve judges charged with grave offense. Administrative proceedings against
judges are, by nature, highly penal in character and are to be governed by the rules
applicable to criminal cases. The quantum of proof required to support the administrative
charges or to establish the ground/s for the removal of a judicial officer should thus be
more than substantial; they must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. (ahhh!!!)
Going over the testimonial and documentary evidence thus adduced during the investigation, the
proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt threshold required under the premises has not been hurdled.
As it were, circumstances obtained and/or credible evidence presented tended to cast a heavy
cloud on complainant’s credibility and, necessarily, her case. For instance, Alfredo Tayabas, a
court aide, contradicting complainant’s account of washing food containers ("pyrex") inside the
CR, testified that "[O]n August 29, 2002, after the [birthday] lunch, [he] and Mr. Michael Monje
cleared the table …, brought the plates and utensils used to the comfort room and washed them
all inside."14 And then there is the complainant’s allegation that on a day in October 2002, while
working past the regular working hours, respondent judge attempted to kiss her. This incident
could not have happened as the complainant narrated for the simple reason that not once did she
render overtime service for the month of October 2002. The entries in her DTR15 for the period
which show her being out of the office by 5 p.m. of every working day negate the idea of overtime
work.
With the view we thus take of the case, complainant has failed to prove her charge against the
respondent judge with the quantum of proof required under the premises. Given this perspective,
the dismissal of the complaint as against respondent judge for insufficiency of evidence is
indicated.
Suspended for six months without pay
In this particular case, we are principally concerned with the moral fiber of Judge Caminade. His
penchant for teasing and showing unwelcome affection to women indicates a certain moral
depravity and lack of respect towards his female employees. They were his subordinates and he
should have treated them like his own children. Instead, he took advantage of his superior
position
We have repeatedly held that, while every office in the government service is a public trust, no
position exacts greater moral righteousness than a seat in the judiciary.3 Performing as he does
an exalted role in the administration of justice, a judge must pay a high price for the honor
bestowed upon him. Thus, a judge must comport himself at all times in such a manner that his
conduct, official or otherwise, can weather the most exacting scrutiny of the public that looks up
to him as the epitome of integrity and justice.
Canons 35 and 46 of the new Code of Judicial Conduct mandate, respectively, that "judges shall
ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view
 shocked, retorted "Kalo-od
nimo Judge uy" (You are so
disgusting, Judge). She then
opened the door and went
out of his chambers.
-lol
JOANNE S. GOLTIAO, Aproniano V. Mamenta, Jr., Goltiao: Stenographer I The respondent, who was
Complainant, v. Clerk of Court II sitting at the judge’s chair,
APRONIANO V. MAMENTA, then extended his hand to
JR., Clerk of Court II, Bullshit ka! Okinnam nga her, as if he wanted to shake
Municipal Circuit Trial babai! Apay ta innalam her hands. She reciprocated
Court, Tayug-San Nicolas, dagita kliyente idiay sanak by extending her hands and
Pangasinan, Respondent. to rinayawan!” jokingly put his hands on
her forehead (agmanmano).
She afterwards tried to free
Okinnam nga babai! Matay her hands off his but he
ka koma itattan! Apay sinno would not let her. Instead,
aya ti paglaslastog mo? Sige, he told her, "Wait for a
agpipinnadas tayo." while, I would just like to
tell you something. I love
you, is that okay? Tell me
that you love me too. No
strings attached." She
retorted, "As if you are my
father." Spurned, he got
mad. This kind of incident
happened at least ten more
times.
DR. RICO S. JACUTIN, City Health Officer Rico Juliet Q. Yee, fresh grad Petitioner still pushed her
petitioner, Jacutin pants down to her knees
vs. and held her thigh. He put
PEOPLE OF THE his hands inside her panty
PHILIPPINES, respondent. until he reached her pubic
of the reasonable observer" and that "judges shall avoid improprieties and the appearance of
impropriety in all of their activities." These very stringent standards of decorum are demanded of
all magistrates and employees of the courts.
Judge Caminade’s behavior must be sanctioned. We are neither amused by his claims of innocent
playfulness nor impressed by his excessive display of congeniality. He acted beyond the bounds
of decency, morality and propriety. He failed to meet the standard of conduct embodied in the
Code of Judicial Conduct. His abusive and distasteful acts unmistakably constituted sexual
harassment because they resulted in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for his
female subordinates.
DISMISSAL from service
A painstaking examination of the records of the cases convinces us that the respondent is guilty
of the offenses charged against him.
The undue advances respondent made to complainant Goltiao betrays his twisted sense of
propriety. Many times, he declared his feelings for her and handed her love notes. He would then
beseech her to say the same things to him. He proposed to have dinner dates with her at Jollibee.
There were times that he cornered her at the judge’s chamber and unnecessarily held her hand.
While professing one’s amorous intention is not something that usually causes a hullabaloo, it
becomes indecent and improper in this case considering he is complainant Goltiao’s superior and
both of them are married. His dissoluteness told itself when he went to the extent of calling her at
her mother’s house and persuading her not to tell her husband about these incidents.
It appears too that the complainant was not the exclusive object of respondent’s advances.
Witnesses Marilyn de Leon and Glenda Ramirez testified that they also received love notes and
invitations for dinner from him. Like a hunter out on the prowl, he victimized other female
workers unabashedly professing his alleged feelings for them in utter disregard of the fact that
they were his subordinates, they were married and they were young enough to be his daughters.
Instead of he being in loco parentis over his subordinate employees, he preyed on them as he took
advantage of his superior position.
Under the circumstances, we find respondent guilty of sexual harassment. His severely
outrageous acts, which are an affront to women, constitute sexual harassment because they
necessarily result in an intimidating, hostile, and offensive working environment for his female
subordinates. He abused the power and authority he exercises over them, which is the
gravamen of the offense in sexual harassment. Sexual harassment in the workplace is not
about a man taking advantage of a woman by reason of sexual desire — it is about power
being exercised by a superior over his women subordinates. That power emanates from
the fact that he can remove them if they refuse his amorous advances.
Imprisonment of six (6) months
Petitioner was the City Health Officer of Cagayan de Oro City, a position he held when complainant,
a newly graduated nurse, saw him to enlist his help in her desire to gain employment. He did try
to show an interest in her plight, her father being a boyhood friend, but finding no opening
 hair. Surprised, she suitable for her in his office, he asked her about accepting a job in a family planning research
exclaimed "hala ka!" and project. While the City Mayor had the exclusive prerogative in appointing city personnel, it should
instinctively pulled her stand to reason, nevertheless, that a recommendation from petitioner in the appointment of
pants up. Petitioner then personnel in the municipal health office could carry good weight. Indeed, petitioner himself would
touched her abdomen with appear to have conveyed, by his words and actions, an impression that he could facilitate Juliet’s
his right hand saying words employment. Indeed, petitioner would not have been able to take undue liberalities on the
of endearment and letting person of Juliet had it not been for his high position in the City Health Office of Cagayan de
the back of his palm touch Oro City.
her forehead. He told her to
raise her shirt to check
whether she had nodes or
lumps. She hesitated for a
while but, eventually, raised
it up to her navel. Petitioner
then fondled her breast.
Shocked at what petitioner
did, she lowered her shirt
and embraced her bag to
cover herself, telling him
angrily that she was
through with the research.
He begged her not to tell
anybody about what had
just happened. Before she
alighted from the car,
petitioner urged her to
reconsider her decision to
quit. He then handed over to
her P300.00 for her
expenses.

THIS IS YOUR GUIDE 

Section 3. Work-related Sexual harassment; definition. – Work-related sexual harassment is committed is committed by an employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, having authority, influence or
moral ascendancy over another in a work environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by
the latter.

Section 4. Work-related Sexual harassment; how committed. Work-related sexual harassment is committed when:

(a) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-employment or continued employment of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation, terms, conditions,
promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in anyway would discriminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect said employee. It shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following modes:
1. Physical, such as malicious touching, overt sexual advances, and gestures with lewd insinuation.
2. Verbal, such as requests or demands for sexual favors, and lurid remarks.
3. Use of objects, pictures or graphics, letters or written notes with sexual underpinnings.
4. Other acts analogous to the foregoing.

(b) The above acts would impair the employee's rights or privileges under existing laws; or
(c) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee.103 (Emphasis supplied)

Section 53. Sexual harassment is classified as grave, less grave and light offenses.
A. Grave Offenses shall include, but are not limited to:
1. unwanted touching of private parts of the body (genitalia, buttocks and breast);
2. sexual assault;
3. malicious touching;
4. requesting for sexual favor in exchange for employment, promotion, local or foreign travels, favorable working conditions or assignments, a passing grade, the granting of honors or scholarship, or the grant of benefits
or payment of a stipend or allowance, and
5. other analogous cases.

B. Less Grave Offenses shall include, but are not limited to:
1. unwanted touching or brushing against a victim's body;
2. pinching not falling under grave offenses;
3. derogatory or degrading remarks or innuendoes directed toward the members of one sex, or one's sexual orientation or used to describe a person;
4. verbal abuse with sexual overtones; and
5. other analogous cases.

C. The following shall be considered Light Offenses;

1. surreptitiously looking or staring a look of a person's private part or worn undergarments;
2. telling sexist/smutty jokes or sending these through text, electronic mail or other similar means, causing embarrassment or offense and carried out after the offender has been advised that they are offensive or
embarrassing or, even without such advise, when they are by their nature clearly embarrassing, offensive or vulgar;
3. malicious leering or ogling;
4. the display of sexually offensive pictures, materials or graffiti;
5. unwelcome inquiries or comments about a person's sex life;
6. unwelcome sexual flirtation, advances, propositions;
7. making offensive hand or body gestures at an employee;
8. persistent unwanted attention with sexual overtones;
9. unwelcome phone calls with sexual overtones causing discomfort, embarrassment, offense or insult to the receiver; and
10. other analogous cases. (Emphases supplied)