UNDER THE

LAW
WITH ATTY. MOX

EPISODE 15
 SC Imposes
Imprisonment for
Lascivious Conduct
G.R. No. 228980 (Villanueva v. People)
 Lascivious Conduct
• “Lascivious Conduct” is defined in the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7610
as “the intentional touching, either directly or
through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin,
breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the
introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus
or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or
opposite sex, with intent to abuse, humiliate,
harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation,
lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area
of a person.”

(SOURCE: https://pia.gov.ph/) AND RELEVANT LAWS)

 The Court found the
testimony of the 16-year-old
victim to be clear, candid, and
categorical when she relayed
that the accused lifted her
skirt and touched her
buttocks, which constitute
overt acts of the accused
tantamount to lascivious
conduct.
 UNDER RA 7610 ARTICLE III
CHILD PROSTITUTION AND
OTHER SEXUAL ABUSE
• Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse.

• Xxxxx
• (b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of
lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution
or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the
victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators
shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for
rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the
Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the
case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious
conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age
shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; and
For committing Lascivious Conduct against
a minor, the accused was sentenced to the
penalty of imprisonment for an
indeterminate period of 14 years and eight
months of reclusion temporal, as minimum,
to 20 years of reclusion temporal, as
maximum; and was ordered to pay the
private complainant P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages,
and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, to
earn legal interest at the rate of 6 percent
per annum from the date of finality of the
Decision until full payment.
NOTE
• The Court further noted that it is not unmindful
of the accused’s claim that the penalty imposed is
disproportionate to the crime committed and the
surrounding circumstances of its commission.
However, the Court stressed that it is duty bound
to apply the law in full force and impose the
proper penalty for the crime committed by the
accused. Thus, considering the severe penalty
imposed by the Court in accordance with the law,
the Court in this case invoked Article 5 of the
Revised Penal Code and submits to the Chief
Executive, through the Department of Justice, for
study and consideration of the mitigation of the
penalty imposed on the accused.
RTC Clerk Dismissed for
Demanding Money in
Exchange for Release of
Certificate

A.M. No. P-23-077

 The case stemmed from a letter-
complaint from a person under
the nom de plume “Danilo D. Divina
Gracia” (complainant) who accused
Michael Vincent L. Ozon (Ozon),
Clerk III of Branch 1, RTC, Butuan
City, Agusan del Norte, of asking for
the amount of PHP 25,000.00 in
exchange for the release of the
certificate of finality of the former’s
case for declaration of nullity of
marriage.
• Thereafter, Executive Judge Calo
obtained sworn statements from two
private individuals who revealed that
respondent offered “facilitation services”
in declaration of nullity cases. They
stated that instead of the usual number
of months it would take for processing
the service of the decision and the
corresponding return card, Ozon would
expedite the same process into merely
three days by sending the
decisions via private courier to the Office
of Solicitor General (OSG) in exchange
for PHP 5,000.00.
• The Court, in a Per Curiam Decision,
ruled that Ozon’s bare denial is self-
serving and a weak defense vis-à-
vis the RTC Branch Clerk of Court’s
positive testimony which
corroborated complainant’s
allegation that Ozon demanded
money from litigants for the release
of certificates of finality.
 In addition, his denial and sophistry cannot
defeat the substantial evidence on record
consisting of sworn statements, which were
corroborated by the factual findings of the
Judicial Integrity Board that Ozon mailed the
OSG copy of the decisions in 10 declaration of
nullity cases via private courier instead of
registered mail as required under Section
19(2) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, or the Rule on
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
Marriages.
•The Court thus found that the
elements of corruption and
clear intent to violate the law
are present in Ozon’s actions
and thus should not be
countenanced; otherwise, it
would cause damage to the
integrity of the Judiciary.
 SC Affirms Xerox
Business’ Solidary
Liability as Employer
in Sexual Harassment
Case
G.R. 268399
(Buban V. Dela Pena et. al)
• Complainant was hired by Xerox Business as
Customer Care Senior Specialist in 2014. In
March 2015, while at the office, complainant
informed Nilo Dela Peña (Dela Peña), the
assigned team leader, of a system error in the
use of her temporary headset and asked the
latter for assistance. Dela Peña told
complainant that the error might be due to
the headset itself and told her to get a
replacement in the storage room.
• While complainant was in the storage room, Dela Peña
suddenly appeared and told her: “Baby tigas na tigas na
ako, kelan mo ba talaga ako
pagibigyan [sic]?” Complainant, trying to make light of
the situation, replied, “TL ano kaba? Para kang tanga
diyan.” She grabbed the nearest headset and ran out of
the room back to her station.
When the headset that complainant grabbed
turned out to be similarly defective, she went
back to the storage room, thinking that Dela
Peña had already left. To her surprise, Dela
Peña approached her, grabbed her waist, and
tried to kiss her when she hurriedly moved
away. Complainant struggled to push Dela
Peña away, but the latter was able to hug her
and grope her breasts. Mustering all her
strength, complainant was able to break free
from Dela Peña’s hold and race out of the
room.
• However, Dela Peña still approached her
at her workstation and told her to reboot
her tools and get a replacement headset
so she could start making calls instead of
slacking off. Distressed, complainant
complied and went back to the storage
room to get a replacement headset, but
Dela Peña followed her, closed the door,
and blocked the exit.
•Dela Peña again made advances
on complainant, saying, “Sige na
Baby, pagkahawak mo at itatago
ko din agad,” and forcing himself
on her. When complainant found
an opportunity, she ran out of the
room.
 • Complainant claimed that from then on, she detested
going to work and she became anxious and paranoid. She
would find herself uncontrollably crying whenever she
saw Dela Peña, but, as she was a single parent, she could
not afford to quit and had no choice but to continue
working. Complainant further claimed that she reported
the incident and filed a formal complaint with the
company’s Human Resources Department, but her case
was never heard and the management did not give her
any protective measure. Dela Peña, who continued to
work in the same area and same shift with her, even
insinuated that it was complainant who wanted what
happened between them to transpire. Worse, complainant
said that Xerox Business withheld three days of her
salary in May 2015.
This prompted her to file a complaint
before the Labor Arbiter against
Xerox Business, its human resources
manager, and Dela Peña for sexual
harassment, with prayer for payment
of unpaid salary and damages.
 • The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of
complainant, finding Xerox Business
liable for constructive dismissal for its
failure to create a Committee on
Decorum and Investigation and
investigate the incident. It ordered Xerox
Business to pay complainant moral
damages of PHP 100,000.00, exemplary
damages of PHP 50,000.00, and three-
day salary of PHP 2,630.58.
 •The Court reiterated that in
cases involving sexual
harassment, an employee is
deemed constructively dismissed
if he or she was sexually harassed
by his or her superior, and said
superior failed to act on the
employee’s complaint with
promptness and sensitivity.
 SEPARATION PAY
• However, the Court did not sustain the
complainant’s claim that she was entitled to
separation pay and backwages on the basis of
the finding of constructive dismissal. It took
note of the fact that complainant did not
resign from her work despite the hostile,
offensive, and intimidating work
environment. The Court also found that the
records of the case contained no allegation of
demotion in rank or diminution of pay and
benefits. It stressed that there was no
economic loss to speak of that would warrant
payment of separation benefits and
backwages.
• An employee who voluntarily resigns is
generally not entitled to separation pay
unless the employment contract or
company policy states otherwise. Since
resignation is a voluntary act by the
employee themself, employers are not
bound to give this pay. (www.eezi.com)
Who is entitled to separation pay in
the Philippines?
• Resigned employees generally do not receive
separation pay. Only a terminated employee
can be entitled to the pay. Provided that the
termination of their employment is due to
authorized causes under Article 198 of the
Labor Code. An authorized cause could
either be of the following:
• Installation of labor-saving devices
• Redundancy
• Retrenchment due to financial losses
• Closure or cessation of operations
• Disease (eezi.com)
 However, the Court did not sustain the complainant’s
claim that she was entitled to separation pay and
backwages on the basis of the finding of constructive
dismissal. It took note of the fact that complainant did not
resign from her work despite the hostile, offensive, and
intimidating work environment. The Court also found that
the records of the case contained no allegation of demotion
in rank or diminution of pay and benefits. It stressed that
there was no economic loss to speak of that would warrant
payment of separation benefits and backwages.
• On the proper amount of damages, the Court
first highlighted that the essence of sexual
harassment is not the violation of the
sexuality of the offended party, but the
offender’s abuse of power. This abuse of
power, the Court said, comes from the fact
that the superior can remove the subordinate
from the workplace should the latter refuse
the superior’s advances.
 • Sustaining the CA on the modification of the
awards of damages, the Court ruled that reducing
the amount of moral damages to PHP 100,000.00
and exemplary damages to PHP 50,000.00 was
supported not only by the records of the case, but
also by prevailing jurisprudence.

• XXX The ruling was also in line with 2020 case

of Toliongco v. CA, where the Court awarded the
same amounts as moral and exemplary damages
upon a finding of sexual harassment.
 FILING FOR CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
• The Court concluded by stressing
that it will not hesitate in granting
affirmative relief that is due the
complainant under the law, saying
that under RA 7877, she is not
precluded from filing a separate
action for any affirmative relief
arising from the acts of sexual
harassment.