Sexual Harassment (RA 7877)

MA. LOURDES T. DOMINGO v. ROGELIO I. RAYALA

G.R. No. 155831 February 18, 2008

FACTS:

Petitioner Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo, then Stenographic Reporter III at theNLRC,

filed a Complaint for sexual harassment against Respondent, NLRCChairman Rogelio I.
Rayala before the Secretary of Labor and Employment.She claimed that the respondent
committed the following acts:

1. Holding and squeezing her shoulders;

2. Running his fingers across her neck and tickling her ear;

3. having inappropriate conversations wither her;

4. Giving her money allegedly for school expenses with a promise of futureprivileges;

5. Making statements with unmistakable sexual overtones.

A committee was created to investigate the said allegations. The saidcommittee

found the respondent guilty of the offense charged andrecommended the imposition of
the minimum penalty provided under AO250, which it erroneously stated as suspension
for 6 months.

However, the Secretary of Labor and employment recommended that the penalty
shouldbe suspension for 6 months and 1 day, in accordance with AO 250. TheOffice of
the President, through Executive Secretary Zamora, concurred withthe findings of the
Committee but imposed the penalty of dismissal. Therespondent assailed the decision
claiming his acts do not constitute sexualharassment.CA RULING: The CA held that there
was sufficient evidence on record tocreate moral certainty that the Respondent
committed the acts he wascharged with.
ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the Respondent is guilty of sexual harassment?

2. Whether or not the Office of the President may impose the penalty ofdismissal?

SC RULING:

1.

Yes. If we were to test Rayala’s acts strictly by the standards set in Section3, RA
7877, he would still be administratively liable. It is true that this provision calls for a
"demand, request or requirement of a sexual favour." But it is not necessary that the
demand, request or requirement of a sexual favour 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. Likewise, contrary to Rayala’s claim, 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
respondent’s acts result in creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for
the employee.