Domingo v.

Rayala
G.R. No. 155831
February 18, 2008
Sexual harassment is an imposition of misplaced superiority which is enough to dampen an
employees spirit and her capacity for advancement. It affects her sense of judgment; it changes her life.
It is incumbent upon the head of office to set an example on how his employees should conduct
themselves in public office, so that they may work efficiently in a healthy working atmosphere. Courtesy
demands that he should set a good example.
FACTS
Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo, then Stenographic Reporter III at the NLRC, filed a Complaint for sexual
harassment against Rayala before Secretary Bienvenido Laguesma of DOLE. The complaint contains the
following allegations :
Holding and squeezing Domingos 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.
Upon receipt of the Complaint, DOLE Secretary referred it to the OP, Rayala being a presidential
appointee. The OP, through then Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora, ordered Secretary Laguesma to
investigate the allegations in the Complaint and create a committee for such purpose.
On December 4, 1998, Secretary Laguesma issued Admin. Order. No. 280, Series of
1998, constituting a Committee on Decorum and Investigation (Committee) in accordance with Republic
Act (RA) 7877, the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995.
The Committee heard the parties and received their respective evidence. On March 2, 2000, the
Committee submitted its report and recommendation to Secretary Laguesma. It found Rayala guilty of the
offense charged and recommended the imposition of the minimum penalty provided under AO 250, which
it erroneously stated as suspension for six (6) months (the correct penalty is 6months and 1 day).
Executive Secretary Zamora, issued AO 119, which dismissed Rayaua from service effective upon
receipt of the Order.
Rayala filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the OP denied in a Resolution. Under Rule 65,
iled a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order. However, it was
dismissed for disregarding the hierarchy of courts. MR was filed and the case was referred to CA for
appropriate action.
CA: sufficient evidence on record to create moral certainty that Rayala committed the acts he was
charged with. Dismissed for disgraceful and immoral conduct in violation of RA 6713, the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
Rayala timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration.

CA(modified its ruling in a special division of 5): the penalty of dismissal is DELETED and
instead the penalty of suspension from service for the maximum period of one (1) year is HEREBY
IMPOSED upon the petitioner. The rest of the challenged decision stands.
Domingo filed a Petition for Review, but was denied for having a defective verification. MR granted,
petition reinstated.
Rayala likewise filed a Petition for Review arguing that he is not guilty of any act of sexual
harassment.
Meanwhile, the Republic filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the CA, but was denied.
On June 28, 2004, the Court directed the consolidation of the three (3) petitions.
ISSUES
(1) Did Rayala commit sexual harassment? (yes)
(2) If he did, what is the applicable penalty? (1 yr suspension)
RULING
(1) YES. Factual findings are conclusive on the SC. And quite significantly, Rayala himself admits to
having committed some of the acts imputed to him.
It is noteworthy that the five CA Justices who deliberated on the case were unanimous in
upholding the findings of the Committee and the OP. They found the assessment made by the
Committee and the OP to be a meticulous and dispassionate analysis of the testimonies of the
complainant (Domingo), the respondent (Rayala), and their respective witnesses. They differed
only on the appropriate imposable penalty.
That Rayala committed the acts complained of and was guilty of sexual harassment is,
therefore, the common factual finding of not just one, but three independent bodies: the
Committee, the OP and the CA. It should be remembered that when supported by substantial
evidence, factual findings made by quasi-judicial and administrative bodies are accorded great
respect and even finality by the courts. The principle, therefore, dictates that such findings
should bind us.
(2) The presence of taking undue advantage of a subordinate may be considered as an aggravating
circumstance in this case. And where only aggravating and no mitigating circumstances are
present, the maximum penalty shall be imposed. Hence, the maximum penalty that can be
imposed on Rayala is suspension for one (1) year.
In this case, it is the President of the Philippines, as the proper disciplining authority,
who would determine whether there is a valid cause for the removal of Rayala as NLRC
Chairman. This power, however, is qualified by the phrase for cause as provided by law. Thus,
when the President found that Rayala was indeed guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct, the
Chief Executive did not have unfettered discretion to impose a penalty other than the penalty
provided by law for such offense.
Under AO 250, the penalty for the first offense is suspension for six (6) months and one
(1) day to one (1) year, while the penalty for the second offense is dismissal. On the other hand,
Section 22(o), Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the Administrative Code of

1987 and Section 52 A(15) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service both provide that the first offense of disgraceful and immoral conduct is punishable by
suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year. A second offense is punishable by
dismissal.
As cited above, the imposable penalty for the first offense of either the administrative
offense of sexual harassment or for disgraceful and immoral conduct is suspension of six (6)
months and one (1) day to one (1) year. Accordingly, it was error for the Office of the President to
impose upon Rayala the penalty of dismissal from the service, a penalty which can only be
imposed upon commission of a second offense.