Where do you draw

the line on sexual

harassment?
 What is sexual harassment?

 What are the laws particularly

relating to Sexual
Harassment?
Republic Act No. 7877 otherwise
known
as the Anti –Sexual Harassment Act of
1995.

 Civil Service Commission Resolution

No. 01-0940 otherwise known as the
Administrative Disciplinary Rules on
Sexual Harassment Cases.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT

 UNWELCOME
 ADVANCE, REQUEST, or DEMAND
 SEXUAL FAVOR
 State Declaration of Policy

 value the dignity of every individual,

 enhance the development of its
human resources,
 guarantee full respect for human
rights
 Where or how does Sexual
Harassment take place?
 In the premises of the workplace or office or of the school
or training institution;
 In any place where the parties were found as a result of
work or education or training responsibilities or relations;
 At Work or Education or Training Related social functions.
 While on official business outside the office or school or
training institution or during work or school or training-
related travel;
 At official conferences, fora, symposia or training sessions;
or
 By Telephone, cellular phone, fax machine, or electronic
mail.
 CSC Memorandum Circular
provides for the illustrative forms
of sexual harassment:
 Physical
 Malicious
Touching
 Overt Sexual
Advances
 Gestures with
lewd
insinuation.
 Verbal, such as but not limited to,
requests or demands for sexual
favors, and lurid remarks;
 Use of objects, pictures, or graphics,
letters or writing notes with sexual
underpinnings;
 Other forms analogous to the
foregoing.
 POSSIBLE OFFENDERS
 Teacher

 Employer  Instructor
 Professor
 Employee
 Coach
 Manager
 Trainor
 Supervisor
 Orany other having
 Agent
of the authority, influence,
Employer or moral
ascendancy.
 ACTS PUNISHED

 Demanding
 Requesting
 Requiring
 ANY SEXUAL FAVOR REGARDLESS
WHETHER ACCEPTED.
In a Work-Related Environment
 SEXUAL FAVOR IS MADE A CONDITION IN –
 Hiring
 Re-employment
 Continued Employment
 Granting Favorable Compensation, Terms of Condition,
Promotions, or Privileges OR
 Refusal results in discrimination, deprivation, or
diminution of opportunities/adversely affect.

 THE ACTS RESULT IN AN

 Intimidating
 Hostile
 Offensive

 Environment for the employee.

In an Education/Training
Environment
Against one who is under the …

 Care
 Custody or
 Supervision of Offender

Against one whose education,

training, apprenticeship or
tutorship is entrusted to offender.
  Sexual favour is made a CONDITION to
 Passing grade
 Granting of honor/scholarships
 Payment of a stipend/allowance/other benefits.

 The ACTS RESULT in an

 Intimidating
 Hostile
 Offensive
 Environment for the student/trainee/apprentice
What if you’re not the one who
committed Sexual Harassment
but…
 Directs/induces another
 Cooperates
(without which it wouldn’t have been
committed)

They too, shall, also be held liable

under this Act.
 DUTY OF EMPLOYER/HEAD OF
OFFICE
 Prevent or Deter the Commission of Sexual Harassment

 Provide the Procedures for the Resolution, Settlement, or

Prosecution

 Promulgate Rules and Regulations in consultation with and

jointly approved by the employees or students or trainees
prescribing the procedure for the investigation and the
administrative sanctions therefor.

 Create Committee on Decorum and Investigation which

shall conduct meetings to increase understanding and
prevent incidents of Sexual Harassment.
 LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER OR
HEAD OF OFFICE

 Solidarily liable for damages.

 if informed by the offended party and
 no immediate action is taken.
PENALTIES

 imprisonment of 1 month – 6 months

 fine P10,000 – P20,000
 or both
PRESCRIPTION

 3 years – Criminal Case

 Does not prescribe – Administrative

Case
 The Committee on Decorum
and Investigation shall perform
the following:
 Receive complaints of sexual harassment.

 Investigate sexual harassment complaints in accordance with

the prescribed procedure.

 Submit a report of its findings with the corresponding

recommendation to the disciplining authority for decision.

 Lead in the conduct of discussions about sexual harassment

within the agency or institution to increase understanding and
prevent incidents of sexual harassment.
 Some
Jurisprudence on
Sexual Harassment
 Bacsin v. Wahiman (2008)

 The demand of a sexual favor need

not be explicit or stated.
 It may be discerned from the acts of
the offender.
Domingo v. Rayala (2008)
 Pabulong na sinasabihan lang ako ni Chairman ng mga
salitang “Lot, gumaganda ka yata?”

 Sa ibang mga pagkakataon nilalapitan na ako ni Chairman at

hahawakan ang aking balikat sabay pisil sa mga ito habang
ako ay nagta-type at habang nagbibigay siya ng diktasyon.

 Sa mga pagkakataong ito, kinakabahan ako. Natatakot na

baka mangyari sa akin ang mga napapabalitang insidente na
nangyari na noon tungkol sa mga sekretarya niyang nagbitiw
gawa ng mga mahahalay na panghihipo ni Chairman.

 Inutusan ako ni Chairman na sumunod sa kaniyang silid.

Nang nasa silid kai, sinabi niya sa akin: Lot, I like you a lot.
Naiiba ka sa lahat.
 Chairman: May boyfriend ka na ba?
 Lot: Dati nagkaroon po.
 Chairman: Nasan na po siya?
 Lot: Nag-asawa na ho.
 Chairman: Bakit hindi kayo nagkatuluyan?
 Lot: Nainip po.
 Chairman: Pagkatapos mo ng kurso mo ay
kumuha ka ng Law at ako ang bahala sa
iyo, hanggang ako pa ang Chairman dito.
 Pagkatapos ay kumuha siya ng pera
sa kaniyang amerikana at inaabot sa
akin.
 Chairman: Kuhanin mo ito.
 Lot: Huwag na ho hindi ko kailangan.
 Hindi sige, kuhanin mo. Ayusin mo
ang dapat ayusin.
 Tinanggap ko po ang pera ng may pag-aalinlangan.

 Natatakot at kinakabahan na kapag hindi ko

tinanggap ang pera ay baka siya ang magagalit.

 Chairman: Paglabas mo itago mo ang pera. Ayaw ko

ng may makaka-alam nito. Just the two of us.

 Lot: Bakit naman, Sir?

 Chairman: Basta. Maraming tsismosa diyan sa labas.

But I don’t give them a damn. Hindi ako mamatay sa
kanila.
 Chairman: Lot, may ka live-in ka ba?
 Lot: Sir, wala po.
 Chairman: Bakit malaki ang balakang
mo?
 Lot: Kayo, Sir ha! Masama sa amin
ang may ka-live in.
 Chairman: Bakit, ano ba ang relihiyon
ninyo?

 Lot: Catholic, Sir. Kailangan ikasal muna.

 Chairman: Bakit ako, hindi kasal.

 Lot: Sir, di magpakasal kayo.

 Chairman: Huh. Ibahin na nga natin ang

usapan.
 …pagharap ko sa kanan any
nakaharang sa dadaanan ko si
Chairman Rayala. Tinitignan ako sa
mata at ang titig niya ay umuusad
mula ulo hanggang dibdib tapos ay
ngumiti na may mahalay na
pakahulugan.
 Palakad-lakad siya sa aking likuran habanga
nagdidikta. Huminto siya pagkatapos, at nilagay
niya ang kanang kamay niya sa aking kanang
balikat at pinisil-pisil ito pagkatapos ay
pinagapang niya ito sa kanang bahagi ng aking
leeg, at pinagapang habang tenga at saka kiniliti.
Dito ko inalis ang kaniyang kamay sa
pamamagitan ng aking kaliwang kamay. At saka
ko sinabi:

 Lot: Sir, yung kamay ninyo alisin niyo!

Rayala’s defenses:
 That there was no explicit demand,
request, or requirement for sexual
favors.

 That it was not made a condition for

continued employment or promotion.
  Issue #1
Not necessary.
 Issue #2
It is enough that the respondents acts
result in creating an intimidating,
hostile, or offensive environment for
the employee.
 It is not essential that the demand, request, or
requirement be made as a condition for
continued employment or for promotion to a
higher position. It is enough that the
respondents acts result in creating an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment
for the employee. That the acts of Rayala
generated an intimidating and hostile
environment for Domingo is clearly shown by
the facts that after the last incident, filed for a
leave of absence and requested transfer to
another unit.
 Since this is an admin case, the
Supreme Court refused to resolve the
issue of whether sexual harassment
is mala in se or malum prohibitum
crime. He was meted the penalty of
suspension.
 Aquino v. Acosta (2002)

Atty. SMA, Chief of the Legal and

Technical Staff of the Court of Tax
Appeals (CTA), charged Judge EA,
Presiding Judge with sexual
harassment.
Incident #1

SMA reported for work after her vacation

in the United States, bringing gifts for the
three judges of the CTA, including
respondent. In the afternoon of the same
day, he entered her room and greeted her
by shaking her hand. Suddenly, he pulled
her towards him and kissed her on her
cheek.
Incident #2

While Justice EA was on official leave, he

called SMA by phone, saying he would get
something in her office. Shortly thereafter,
he entered her room, shook her hand and
greeted her, “Merry Christmas.”
Thereupon, he embraced her and kissed
her. She was able to free herself by slightly
pushing him away.
Incident #3

 On the first working day in January 2001,

Justice EA phoned complainant, asking if
she could see him in his chambers in order
to discuss some matters. When
complainant arrived there, respondent
tried to kiss her but she was able to evade
his sexual attempt. She then resolved not
to enter his chambers alone.
Incident #4
Weeks later, after the Senate
approved the proposed bill
expanding the jurisdiction of the
CTA, while SMA and her companions
were congratulating and kissing each
other, Justice EA suddenly placed his
arms around her shoulders and
kissed her.
Incident #5
 EA approached SMA saying, me gusto akong
gawin sa iyo kahapon pa. He tried to grab her. SMA
instinctively raised her hands to protect herself but
EA held her arms tightly, pulled her towards him and
kissed her. She pushed him away, then she slumped
on a chair trembling. Meantime, EA sat on his chair
and covered his face with his hands. Thereafter, SMA
left crying and locked herself inside a CR.

 After that incident, EA went to her office and tossed

a note stating “sorry, it won’t happen again”.
 SC: No Sexual Harassment
 We have reviewed carefully the records of this
case and found no convincing evidence to
sustain complainants charges. What we perceive
to have been committed by respondent judge
are casual gestures of friendship and
camaraderie, nothing more, nothing less. In
kissing complainant, we find no indication that
respondent was motivated by malice or lewd
design. Evidently, she misunderstood his
actuations and construed them as work related
sexual harassment under Republic Act 7877.
 SC:

 As aptly stated by the Investigating

Justice: “A mere casual buss on the
cheek is not a sexual conduct or
favour and does not fall within the
purview of sexual harassment under
R.A. No. 7877.”
 Ombudsman v. Medrano
(2008)

 The dismissal of the criminal

complaint for Sexual Harassment
based on the Affidavit of Desistance
of complainant public school teacher
is not sufficient cause to have the
administrative case against the
principal dismissed.
 Jacutin v. People (2002)

 Issue: Does the fact that the accused

(City Health Officer) had no power to
appoint complainant who was then
applying for a job as a Nurse in the
City Health Office militate against
the finding of guilt?
 SC: No.
 While the City Mayor had the exclusive
prerogative in appointing city personnel, it should
to reason, nevertheless, that a recommendation
from petitioner in the appointment of personnel
in the municipal health office could carry good
weight. Indeed, petitioner himself would appear
to have conveyed, by his words and actions, an
impression that he could facilitate complainant’s
employment. Indeed, petitioner would not have
been able to take undue liberalities on the person
of Juliet had it not been for his high position in
the City Health Office of Cagayan de Oro City.
Sexual Harassment can happen to
MEN too.