Cresencio vs.

Anonymous Complaint
A.C No. 5900. July 8, 2019
Ponente: Reyes, J. Jr., J.
An anonymous complaint has been forwarded against Atty. Cresencio on the basis of sexual
harassment.
FACTS:

 Atty. Cresencio is a faculty member at the Xavier University, Cagayan de Oro.

 Commissioner Salvado Hababag recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of
law for two years. He reminded that lawyers must be of good moral character and must continue
to possess it so long as he is part of the legal profession.
 In its Resolution No. XIX-2010-289, the IBP-Board of Governors affirmed with modification the
recommendation of Commissioner Hagabag. It resolved to DISBAR respondent on the ground of
ross immoral conduct.
 Respondent moved for reconsideration. IBP-BOG granted his motion and reduced the penalty to
two years suspension and directed Director of Commission on Bar Discipline to prepare an
extended resolution explaining its actions.
 Director Ramon Esguerra explained that responded was not guilty of sexual harassment defined
under R.A. 7877 or the Anti-Sexual Harassment Law of 1995. There was no evidence that he
asked for sexual favors from the complainants. However, Dr. Esguerra expounded that while
respondent’s actions do not constitute sexual harassment as defined by law, his interaction with
the students is unbecoming of the legal profession.

Anonymous Complainant Respondent

 The May 14, 2002 Complaint requested
the Court to investigate the alleged sexual
harassments that Atty. Cresencio
committed against students of Xavier
University, particularly Antoinette Toyco,
Christina Sagarbarria, and Lea Dal.
 In September 26, 2002 Letter, the “law
practitioner” sent copies of complaint-
affidavits of the victims of sexual
harassment and the Resolution of the
Committee on Decorum and Investigation
(Committee on Decorum).
 Toyco claimed that Atty. Cresencio sent
her several stuff. He eventually started
texting her using another student’s phone,
and ultimately his own phone number. He
also invited her to go to Camiguin with
another law student but she declined.
 Sagarbarria claimes that the respondent
showed her a revealing photo of a woman
who looked like her but she insists that it
was not her because of the tattoo that she
had. She suffered from depression and
 He lamented that the complaints of sexual
harassment came from disgruntled
students who failed his class. The
incidents happened years apart but the
complaints were all made at the same
time.
 He denied sending flowers and romantic
messages. He claims that Toyco even
gave him gifts during Valentine’s Day
2002. The “luv u” and “miss u” messages
were purely without malice as they were
sent in a misspelled manner.
 He confiscated the image he showed to
Sagarbarria and showed it to her because
of their mature relationship. He noted that
Sagarbarria is her niece. He claimed that
she was never humiliated because she
even lowered her pants to show him her
tattoo.
 He claimed that Dal answered
disrespectfully to which he responded
“Never use slang language in my class
because you might be misinterpreted.
 was not able to participate in a moot court What do you mean ‘come again?’ It takes
competition because of the fear that she me several minutes before I come again.”
felt caused by the possible spreading of He meant it as a joke and Dal even
this obscene picture. laughed to it.
 Dal said that in a recitation in the 
respondent’s class, she clarified and said
“Sir, come again?” The respondent
replied “What? You want me to come
again? I have not come the first time and
don’t you know it took me five minutes to
come, and you want me to come again?”
She felt embarrassed and this story was
told in other classes as well.
 In September 5, 2002 Resolution, the
Committee on Decorum did not renew the
respondent’s contract because of
unwanted sexual advances or innuendos.

ISSUES:
1. W/N Atty. Cresencio has committed acts of sexual harassment to his students in Xavier University.
(YES)
RULING:
Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr. is SUSPENDED from practice of law for five years and ten years for
teaching it in any school, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be
dealt with more severely.
DOCTRINE:
Good moral character is not only a condition precedent for admission to the legal profession, but
it must also remain intact in order to maintain one’s good standing. In this case, a member of the legal
profession and a teacher nonetheless is held at a higher standard and he must observe good moral standing
at all times. Any untoward act of sexual harassment taints the reputation of the law and the members of
the Bar. Consequently, any action or inaction of a lawyer is succeeded by consequences which could be
dire for the members of the community.