[REPUBLIC ACT NO.

7877]

The Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995

AN ACT DECLARING SEXUAL HARASSMENT UNLAWFUL IN THE

EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION OR TRAINING ENVIRONMENT, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.

The Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, also known as Republic Act No.
7877, is a Philippine law that seeks to protect individuals from sexual
harassment in various settings, including the workplace, educational
institutions, and other establishments. This legislation was enacted to
promote gender equality, uphold human dignity, and provide a safe and
conducive environment for all individuals, regardless of their gender.

The Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 contains several key

provisions that aim to prevent and address sexual harassment in
various settings. These provisions include:

*Definition of sexual harassment: The Act defines sexual harassment as

unwelcome verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature that is
offensive or intimidating to the recipient. This includes any behavior that
creates a hostile or offensive environment.

*Prohibition of sexual harassment: The Act prohibits any form of sexual

harassment in all settings, including the workplace, educational
institutions, and other establishments.

*Duty of employers: Employers are required to establish policies and

procedures to prevent sexual harassment and ensure that employees are
aware of these policies. They must also take appropriate action against any
individual found guilty of sexual harassment.

*Rights of victims: Victims of sexual harassment have the right to file a

complaint with the appropriate authorities and seek redress for any
damages suffered.

*Training and education: The Act encourages the development of training

and education programs to raise awareness about sexual harassment and
promote a culture of respect and dignity in the workplace and other settings.
 CASE DIGEST REGARDING R.A. 8239

Case No. 1

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 211962, July 06, 2020 ]

JOSE ROMEO C. ESCANDOR, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Case:

This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure filed by petitioner Jose Romeo C. Escandor
(Escandor). He prays for the reversal of the assailed October 17, 2013
Decision3 and February 28, 2014 Resolution4 of the Special Third Division
of the Sandiganbayan. The assailed Decision found Escandor guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense of sexual harassment as penalized by the
Anti-Sexual Harassment Act. The assailed Resolution, denied Escandor's
Motion for Reconsideration.

Facts:

Jose Romeo Escandor, the Regional Director of the National Economic and
Development Authority (NEDA) Region 7, Cebu City, was accused of
violating the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995. It was alleged that he
made unwelcome sexual advances and demands from Cindy Sheila
Cobarde-Gamallo, a contractual employee of the NEDA and Escandor’s
subordinate.

Issues:

Was Escandor’s guilt for sexual harassment under the Anti-Sexual

Harassment Act of 1995 established beyond reasonable doubt?

Ruling:

Yes. For a person to be convicted of sexual harassment under Republic Act

No. 7877, three elements must be present. Firstly, the accused must have
authority, influence, or moral ascendancy over another person. Secondly,
the authority, influence, or moral ascendancy must exist in a work, training,
or education-related environment. Thirdly, the accused must make a
demand, request, or requirement of a sexual favor.
Case No. 2

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Baguio City

SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 146053, April 30, 2008 ]

DIOSCORO F. BACSIN, petitioner,

vs.
EDUARDO O. WAHIMAN, respondent.

Case:

In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, petitioner Dioscoro F. Bacsin

questions the Decision1 dated August 23, 2000 of the First Division of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 51900, which affirmed Resolution
No. 98-0521 dated March 11, 1998 and Resolution No. 99-0273 dated
January 28, 1999, both issued by the Civil Service Commission (CSC),
dismissing petitioner from the service for Grave Misconduct.

Facts:

Petitioner is a public school teacher of Pandan Elementary School, Pandan,

Mambajao, Camiguin Province. Respondent Eduardo O. Wahiman is the
father of AAA, an elementary school student of the petitioner.

In his defense, petitioner claimed that the touching incident happened by

accident, just as he was handing AAA a lesson book.[6] He further stated
that the incident happened in about two or three seconds, and that the girl
left his office without any complaint.

Issues:

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.

Ruling:

The petition is without merit.

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 “when 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. It cannot then be said that the CSC lacked
basis for its ruling, when it had both the facts and the law. The CSC found
the evidence presented by the complainant sufficient to support a finding of
grave misconduct. It is basic that factual findings of administrative agencies,
when supported by substantial evidence, are binding upon the Court.

From the findings of fact of the

CSC, it is clear that there is misconduct on the part of petitioner. The term
“misconduct” denotes intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule
of law or standard of behavior.

We agree with the rulings of the CSC and the CA.

A 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.

Under Rule IV, Section 52 of the CSC Uniform Rules on Administrative

Cases, “Grave Misconduct” carries with it the penalty of dismissal for the
first offense. Thus, the penalty imposed on petitioner is in accordance with
the Rules.

Petitioner was not denied due process of law, contrary to his claims. The
essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or, as applied
to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side or an
opportunity to seek for a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained
of. These elements are present in this case, where petitioner was properly
informed of the charge and had a chance to refute it, but failed.
Case No. 3

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

MANILA

EN BANC

[ G.R. No. 169449, March 26, 2010 ]

TERESITA G. NARVASA, Petitioner,

vs.
BENJAMIN A. SANCHEZ, JR., Respondent.

Case:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the April 25, 2005 decision3 and
August 4, 2005 resolution4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
81107. The parties to this case are employees of the Municipality of Diadi,
Nueva Vizcaya (the LGU). Petitioner Teresita G. Narvasa is a senior
bookkeeper while respondent Benjamin A. Sanchez, Jr. is the municipal
assessor. The instant case stemmed from three cases of sexual harassment
filed separately against respondent by petitioner along with Mary Gay P. de
la Cruz and Zenaida M. Gayaton, who are also employees of the LGU.

Facts:

The case stemmed from three cases of sexual harassment filed separately
against respondent by petitioner along with Mary Gay P. de la Cruz and
Zenaida M. Gayaton, who are also employees of the LGU.

Gayaton received a text message while she was passing respondent’s car in
front of the municipal hall. The message said, “Pauwi ka na ba sexy?”
Gayaton later verified through respondent’s clerk, Alona Agas, that the
sender of the message was respondent. Gayaton eventually received several
messages from respondent stating: “I like you”; “Have a date with me”;
“Don’t tell to others that I told that I like you because nakakahiya”;
“Puso mo to pag bigay moto sakin, I would be very happy” and “I slept and
dreamt nice things about you.”

Based on the investigation conducted by the LGU’s Committee on Decorum

and Investigation (CODI), respondent was found guilty of all three charges
by the Municipal Mayor. For the offenses committed against De la Cruz and
Gayaton, respondent was meted the penalties of reprimand for his first
offense of light harassment and 30 days’ suspension for his first offense of
less grave sexual harassment. His transgression against petitioner, however,
was deemed to be grave sexual harassment for which he was dismissed from
the government service. As far as petitioner’s complaint was concerned, she
asserted that during a field trip of officers and members of the St. Joseph
Multi-Purpose Cooperative to the Grotto Vista Resort in Bulacan,
respondent pulled her towards him and attempted to kiss her. Petitioner
resisted and was able to escape the clutches of respondent to rejoin the
group that they were travelling with. Respondent apologized to petitioner
thrice regarding that incident.

On appeal, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) passed only on the decision
in the case filed by petitioner since, under the CSC rules, the penalty of
reprimand and/or suspension of not more than 30 days cannot be appealed.
The CSC dismissed the appeal but modified the Mayor’s order by holding
respondent guilty of grave misconduct instead of grave sexual harassment.
The same penalty of dismissal from the service, however, was meted out to
respondent.

Respondent’s next recourse was to the CA which partially granted his

appeal. The CA modified the CSC resolution, finding respondent guilty only
of simple misconduct. Accordingly, the penalty was lowered to suspension
for one month and one day. Petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court
the downgrading of respondent’s offense to simple misconduct.

Issue:

Whether the acts committed by respondent against petitioner (since the CSC
resolution only touched upon petitioner’s complaint) constitute simple
misconduct or grave misconduct?

Held:

The respondent was found guilty of grave misconduct and is ordered

dismissed from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except
accrued leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to re-employment in any
branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned
and controlled corporations.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the CA that neither corruption, clear
intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established rule attended
the incident in question. RA 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
OPINION ABOUT THE CASES REGARDING THE LAW

The Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, also known as Republic Act No.
7877, was enacted in the Philippines with the primary objective of
addressing and preventing sexual harassment in the workplace. This
legislation has been in place for over two decades, and it is crucial to assess
whether it is still effective and, if necessary, determine if amendments are
needed.

I have sited some of the strengths of the Act like:

Clear definition of sexual harassment: The Act provides a clear and

comprehensive definition of sexual harassment, which has helped employees
and employers understand their rights and responsibilities.

Establishment of complaint and investigation mechanisms: The Act

mandates employers to establish complaint and investigation mechanisms
for employees who experience sexual harassment. This ensures that victims
have a safe and efficient channel to report incidents and seek redress.

Protection against retaliation: The Act prohibits employers from

retaliating against employees who file complaints or participate in the
investigation process. This provision safeguards the rights of victims and
encourages them to come forward without fear of reprisal.

And it’s Weaknesses and Areas for Amendment like:

Lack of enforcement: Despite the law’s existence, several challenges persist

in enforcing it. Limited resources, inadequate training, and lack of
awareness about the law contribute to its ineffectiveness in addressing
sexual harassment.

Narrow definition of sexual harassment: The Act focuses primarily on

workplace sexual harassment and does not cover other forms of
harassment, such as those experienced in educational institutions or other
public spaces.

Insufficient penalties: The Act imposes penalties on employers for non-

compliance but does not provide adequate deterrents for individuals who
engage in sexual harassment.

Limited protection for freelancers and contractual workers: The Act

does not specifically address the rights and protection of freelancers and
contractual workers, who are often vulnerable to sexual harassment due to
their precarious employment status.
Conclusion:

We therefore conclude that, the issue of sexual harassment has gained

significant attention in recent years, prompting legal and societal responses
to address and prevent such behavior. Laws regarding anti-sexual
harassment have been established in many countries to provide protection
and recourse for individuals who experience such misconduct. However, the
effectiveness of these laws in addressing the complexities of sexual
harassment and providing adequate protection for victims is a subject of
ongoing debate. In evaluating whether the current laws are sufficient or
require amendments, it is essential to consider various aspects, including
the scope of protection, enforcement mechanisms, cultural context, and
evolving societal norms. Furthermore, the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of
1995 is a crucial legislation in the Philippines that aims to prevent and
address sexual harassment in various settings. It provides a legal framework
for employers and institutions to follow, as well as rights and remedies for
victims. By understanding the key provisions of the Act and utilizing
authoritative references, individuals and organizations can work together to
create a safe and respectful environment for all.