A.C. No.

7204 March 7, 2007

Whether or not the respondent
committed acts are grossly immoral which
CYNTHIA ADVINCULA, Complainant,
would warrant the disbarment or suspension
vs. from the practice of law.

ATTY. ERNESTO M. MACABATA,

Respondent
Held:

Facts:
The Code of Professional
Responsibility provides:

The case is a disbarment case

against respondent on the ground of gross
CANON I – x x x
immorality. It was alleged that sometime in
December 2004, complainant seek for legal
advice from peitioner regarding her
Rule 1.01-- A lawyer shall not engage in
collectibles from a travel company.
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
Respondent sent Demand Letter and
conduct.
sometime in February 2005, they met at
Zensho Restaurant to discuss the possibility
of filing complaint against the travel
CANON 7-- A lawyer shall at all times
company because the latter failed to settle the
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
accounts. That after that said meeting, the
profession and support the activities of the
respondent "held her arm and kissed her on
Integrated Bar.
the cheek while embracing her very tightly."

xxxx
The two met again to finalize the
draft for the complaint and while on their way
home after the said meeting, the respondent
Rule 7.03-- A lawyer shall not engage in
suddenly stopped the car and things went out
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
of hand. Thus she decided to refer the case to
to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public
another lawyer.
or private life, behave in a scandalous manner
to the discredit of the legal profession.

Issue:
 The SC held that lawyers are
expected to abide the tenets of morality, not
only upon admission to the Bar but all
throughtout their legal career as lawyers
belong to an exclusive and honored fraternity.
Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the
integrity of the legal profession and should
adhere to the unwaveringly to the highest
standard of morality. The respondent
admitted to the act of kissing the complainant
on the lips as evidenced as well of his asking
for apology from complainant in his text
message. Regardless of the fact that the
respondent admitted that he kissed the
complainant but the Court held that this was
not accompanied by malice because the
respondent immediately asked for
forgiveness after sensing the annoyance of
the respondent after texting him. Thus the
Court held that this is not grossly immoral nor
highly reprehensible which will warrant
disbarment or suspension. But the Court
reprimanded respondent to be more prudent
and cautious.
Facts:
Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo (Domingo), then
Stenographic Reporter III at the NLRC, filed
a Complaint for sexual harassment against
Rayala, the chairman of NLRC.
She alleged that Rayala called her in his
office and touched her shoulder, part of her
neck then tickled her ears. Rayala argued that
his acts does not constitute sexual harassment
because for it to exist, there must be a
demand, request or requirement of sexual
favor.
Issue:
Whether or not Rayala commit sexual
harassment.
Rulings:
Yes.
The law penalizing sexual harassment in our
jurisdiction is RA 7877. Section 3 thereof
defines work-related sexual harassment in
this wise:
Sec. 3. Work, Education or Training-related
Sexual Harassment Defined. – Work,
education or training-related sexual
harassment is committed by an employer,
manager, supervisor, agent of the employer,
teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor,
or any other person who, having authority,
influence or moral ascendancy over another
in a work or training or education
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
object of said Act.
(a) In a work-related or employment
environment, sexual harassment is
committed when:
(1) 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 a way would discriminate, deprive
or diminish employment opportunities or
otherwise adversely affect said employee;
. (2) The above acts would impair the
employee’s rights or privileges under existing
labor laws; or
. (3) The above acts would result in an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive
environment for the employee.
even if we were to test Rayala’s acts strictly
by the standards set in Section 3, RA 7877, he
would still be administratively liable. 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. Holding and
squeezing Domingo’s shoulders, running his
fingers across her neck and tickling her ear,
having inappropriate conversations with her,
giving her money allegedly for school
expenses with a promise of future privileges,
and making statements with unmistakable
sexual overtones – all these acts of Rayala
resound with deafening clarity the unspoken
request for a sexual favor.
DIOSCORO BACSIN vs. EDUARDO
WAHIMAN
FACTS: Petitioner is a public school teacher
of Pandan Elementary School found guilty of
grave misconduct thru acts of sexual
harassment and was dismissed from the
service by the Civil Service Commission.
The complaint was brought by respondent
Eduardo Wahiman, father of the elementary
student of petitioner which the latter had
sexually harassed by touching and fondling
her breasts at his office. Petitioner appealed
the resolution of the CSC and argued that he
cannot be charged with grave misconduct and
sexual harassment which was different from,
or an offense not alleged, in the formal charge
filed against him merely as misconduct.
RULING: The Court ruled that the charge
against the respondent in an administrative
case need not be drafted with the precision of
an information in a criminal prosecution. It is
sufficient that he is apprised of the substance
of the charge against him; what is controlling
is the allegation of the acts complained of, not
the designation of the offense. 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
People vs. Noveras
Facts:
The case involves the conviction of Edgardo
P. Noveras for the crime of rape. The victim,
BBB, worked as a household help for
Noveras and his wife. On the night of March
17, 1988, Noveras' wife was not at home,
leaving BBB, their children, and a cousin of
the children in the house. In the early morning
of March 18, 1988, Noveras arrived home
drunk and entered the room where BBB and
the children were sleeping. He asked BBB to
turn on the faucet outside for fresh water, but
then told her not to and embraced her instead.
Noveras proceeded to sexually assault BBB,
despite her pleas for him to stop. After the
assault, BBB went to the comfort room and
saw one of the children crying. She then went
out to buy bread and informed the child about
the incident. The child instructed BBB to go
to their aunt's house, and the incident was
eventually reported to the authorities.
Issue:
The main issue in this case is whether
Noveras is guilty of the crime of rape.
Ruling:
The trial court found Noveras guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced him
to reclusion perpetua. The court also ordered
him to pay BBB P100,000.00 as moral
damages. The court based its decision on the
clear, positive, straightforward, and credible
testimony of BBB, as well as the medical
report prepared by the medico-legal officer.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision
of the trial court but reduced the award of
moral damages to P50,000.00. The appellate
court considered the excluded testimony of
Noveras in the interest of substantial justice.
It concluded that BBB's testimony was
truthful and credible, and that she had no
improper motive to testify falsely.
The Supreme Court, in reviewing the case,
found no reason to overturn the trial court's
assessment of BBB's credibility. The Court
emphasized that in rape cases, the credibility
of the victim's testimony is of utmost
importance. After a careful review of the
evidence, the Court found BBB's account to
be truthful and credible. Therefore, it
affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals,
finding Noveras guilty of rape and ordering
him to pay BBB P50,000.00 as moral
damages.
Ratio:
The court's decision was based on the clear,
positive, straightforward, and credible
testimony of BBB. The court found no reason
to doubt her account of the incident,
especially considering the absence of any
improper motive for her to testify falsely. The
court also considered the medical report
prepared by the medico-legal officer, which
supported BBB's claim of sexual assault.
The court rejected Noveras' claim of
consensual sex, stating that the victim's
failure to resist or shout for help does not
imply consent. The court emphasized that the
use of a knife and Noveras' moral ascendancy
over BBB, as her uncle and employer, were
sufficient to bring her into a state of fear and
submission.
The court also upheld the trial court's
assessment of BBB's credibility, as affirmed
by the Court of Appeals. The court
emphasized that in rape cases, the credibility Does her case for constructive dismissal find
of the victim's testimony is crucial in merit?
determining the guilt or innocence of the
accused. Ruling: Yes.

Constructive dismissal does not always entail

Jacob vs first step manpower international a “forthright dismissal or diminution in rank,
services inc. compensation, benefit and privileges.”
Pertinent in the case at hand, there can also be
PETITIONER Donna B. Jacob signed a two-
constructive dismissal in cases where “an act
year contract with respondent First Step
of clear discrimination, insensibility, or
Manpower International Services Inc., as a
disdain by an employer becomes so
household service worker to be deployed to
unbearable on the part of the employee that it
Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. On Jan.
could foreclose any choice by him or her
11, 2015, she was deployed and escorted to
except to forego his or her continued
the residence of her foreign employer
employment.”
Abdulaziz Masser Abdulaziz Al Masoud.
Certainly, the treatment petitioner
On Jan. 31, 2015, she was washing the dishes
experienced in the hands of her foreign
when she felt a hard object rubbing against
employers fostered a hostile and unbearable
her bottom and was surprised to see her male
work setting which impelled her not only to
employer attempting to rape her. She reported
leave her employers but also, as in
the matter to her female employer who
petitioner’s words, to escape (tumakas). The
however did not believe her and since then,
conclusion is all too clear that there exists a
ill-treated her. On Feb. 16, 2015, her female
well-grounded fear on her part prompting her
employer hit her with a shoe, which was
to run away despite having been employed
violently thrown at her. She escaped and went
overseas for barely two months.
to her agency’s counterpart in Riyadh where
she met a fellow Filipina who told her that
The cessation of petitioner’s employment
apart from being maltreated female Filipino
was not of her own doing but was brought
workers were also being sold to their Arab
about by unfavorable circumstances created
employers. Thus, they decided to escape the
by her foreign employers. To simply put, if
agency through the window of the second-
petitioner failed to continue her job, it was
floor comfort room. But she fell and injured
because she refused to be further subjected to
her spinal column.
the ordeal caused by her employers’ conduct.
All of these evidently constitute a case of
On March 31, 2015, she was repatriated to the
constructive dismissal.
Philippines. On July 2, 2015, she filed a case
before the Labor Arbiter for constructive
Therefore, respondents’ argument that
illegal dismissal and other money claims.
petitioner was not dismissed because she
impliedly admitted “in her Petition that she
decided to be repatriated to the Philippines
due to her medical operation” is absurd. In
resolving issues of constructive dismissal,
courts do not only weigh the evidence
presented by the parties, but also delve into
the “totality of circumstances.” In petitioner’s
case, it is apparent that she could not have
gone to the counterpart agency and
eventually injure herself in the course of
escape were it not for the hostile treatment
afforded by her foreign employers which
made her run away.
Furthermore, petitioner’s failure to promptly
report the matter of maltreatment and
harassment to the authorities overseas cannot
be taken against her. In her Petition,
petitioner expressed being “maltreated,
injured and nearly raped.” Hence, “the
behavior and reaction of every person cannot
be predicted with accuracy.”
Given the traumatic incidents petitioner went
through, the alleged delay in reporting could
be reasonably expected. People respond
differently in varied situations, and there
exists “no standard form of behavioral
response when one is confronted with a
strange or startling experience.”
Guided by the foregoing precepts, this Court
finds that petitioner was constructively
discharged from employment and hence,
illegally dismissed. (Donna B. Jacob vs. First
Step Manpower Services Inc., et al., G.R.
229984, July 8 2020).
LBC EXPRESS-VIS, INC. v. MONICA C.
PALCO | G.R. No. 217101 | 12 February
2020
FACTS:
Monica C. Palco was employed by LBC
Express-Vis, Inc. as a customer associate at
its Gaisano Danao Branch. Palco experienced
sexual harassment from Arturo A. Batucan,
the Branch’s Team Leader and Officer-in-
Charge, who frequently flirted with her and
later started making unwanted sexual
advances towards her. Palco reported the
incident to LBC Head Office, but sensing that
management did not immediately act on her
complaint, she resigned from her job.
Palco filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal
against the company and also filed a
Complaint for sexual harassment before the
Danao City Prosecutor’s Office. The Labor
Arbiter ruled in favor of Palco, which the
National Labor Relations Commission
affirmed with modification but reduced the
amount of moral damages to P50,000.00. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC
decision. LBC filed a petition, arguing that it
should not be held for constructive dismissal
because it was Batucan who committed the
acts subject of Palco’s complaint.
ISSUE:
Should LBC be held liable for constructive
dismissal?
RULING:
Yes. The creation of harsh, hostile, and
unfavorable working conditions that obligate
an employee to resign constitutes
constructive dismissal. Sexual harassment of
an employee is one way by which a hostile or
offensive work environment is created, which
is prohibited under Republic Act No. 7877,
also known as the Anti-Sexual Harassment
Act.
In this case, Batucan’s acts were sexually
suggestive, inappropriate, offensive, and
invasive, making Palco’s work environment
unsafe. LBC cannot escape liability by
arguing that it was not the company, but
Batucan, who created the hostile work
environment. Batucan held a supervisory
position, making him part of the managerial
staff, and LBC failed to take immediate
action on Palco’s complaint. LBC’s
indifference to complaints of sexual
harassment victims is a ground for
constructive dismissal. Therefore, Palco was
constructively dismissed due to the hostile
and offensive work environment created and
reinforced by Batucan and LBC.