CrimNotes Exiled

Page 1 of 7

REPUBLIC ACT No. 7877
AN ACT DECLARING SEXUAL HARASSMENT UNLAWFUL IN THE EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION OR TRAINING ENVIRONMENT,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995."

Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State shall value the dignity of every individual, enhance the development of its
human resources, guarantee full respect for human rights, and uphold the dignity of workers, employees, applicants for
employment, students or those undergoing training, instruction or education. Towards this end, all forms of sexual
harassment in the employment, education or training environment are hereby declared unlawful.

Section 3. Work, Education or Training -Related, Sexual Harassment Defined.
Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is committed by an employer, employee, manager, supervisor,
agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having authority,
influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or education environment, demands, requests or
otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for
submission is accepted by the object of said Act.
(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is committed when:
(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-employment or continued
employment of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation, terms of conditions,
promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying
the employee which in any way would discriminate, deprive ordiminish employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect said employee;
(2) The above acts would impair the employee's rights or privileges under existing labor laws; or
(3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee.

(b) In an education or training environment, sexual harassment is committed:
(1) Against one who is under the care, custody or supervision of the offender;
(2) Against one whose education, training, apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted to the offender;
(3) When the sexual favor is made a condition to the giving of a passing grade, or the granting of honors and
scholarships, or the payment of a stipend, allowance or other benefits, privileges, or consideration; or
(4) When the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the student, trainee or
apprentice.

Any person who directs or induces another to commit any act of sexual harassment as herein defined, or who cooperates
in the commission thereof by another without which it would not have been committed, shall also be held liable under
this Act.

Committed in:
o Work
o Training
o School
Education or Training
Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is committed by:
o an employer,
o employee,
o manager,
o supervisor,
o agent of the employer,
o teacher,

CrimNotes Exiled

Page 2 of 7

o instructor,
o professor,
o coach,
o trainor, or
o any other person who,
having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or
education environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the
other,
regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said Act.
Mere making of demand or request consummates the act.

(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is committed when:
(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-employment or continued
employment of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation, terms of conditions,
promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the
employee which in any way would discriminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect said employee;
This law is violated even if the victim is not yet employed or hired.
In one case, the victim was applying as city family planning program. She was interviewed by the City
health chief and her breast was mashed or fondled and she was required to expose her body, which
sexual favor was made for the employment in the City Health office. In that case, the accused is merely
the recommending official, the accused was not the one who would hire or hire. Is he liable?
o According to the SC, Yes!
o Jacutin v. People: 140604: March 6, 2002

JACUTIN v PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
March 6, 2002

FACTS
Dr. Rico Jacutin is the City Health Officer of Cagayan de Oro City.
On November 28,1995, Juliet Q. Yee, then a 22-year old fresh graduate of nursing, together with her father, went
to the office of petitioner at the City Health Office to seek employment.
Juliet was informed by the doctor that the City Health Office had just then filled up the vacant positions for nurses
but that he would still see if he might be able to help her.
The following day, Juliet and her father returned to the City Health Office, and they were informed by petitioner
that there was a vacancy in a family planning project for the city and that, if she were interested, he could
interview her for the job.
Petitioner then started putting up to her a number of questions. At one point (her father has been asked to leave
the office for Juliets formal interview) she was asked whether or not she already had a boyfriend, or whether she
was still a virgin. Dr. Jacutin later offered her the job where she would be the subject of a "research" program. She
was requested to be back after lunch.
At 3:00 oclock in the afternoon, she went back to the office of the accused. As all efforts to look for a job in other
hospitals failed, accused renewed the offer to the complainant to be a part of the research in the Family Planning
Program where there would be physical examination. Complainant told him she would not agree because the
research included hugging. He then assured her that he was just kidding. With assurance given, complainant
changed her mind and agreed to the research, for she is now convinced that she would be of help to the research
and would gain knowledge from it.
On the understanding of the complainant that they will proceed to the clinic where the research will be conducted,
she agreed to go with the accused.
Inside the car, Dr. Jacutin asked her if she has taken a bath. She explained that she was not able to do so because
she left the house hurriedly.

CrimNotes Exiled

Page 3 of 7

Still inside the car, accused directed her to raise her foot so he could see whether she has varicose veins on her
legs. Thinking that it was part of the research, she did as instructed.
He then instructed her to lower her pants and to raise her shirt. Shocked, she exclaimed, hala ka! because he
tried to insert his hand into her panty. Accused then held her abdomen, saying, you are like my daughter, Day!
(Visayan word of endearment), and let the back of his palm touch her forehead, indicating the traditional way of
making the young respect their elders.
Feeling embarrassed and uncomfortable, yet unsure whether she was entertaining malice, she raised her shirt up
to her breast. He then fondled her breast. Reacting, she impulsively lower her shirt and embraced her bar while
silently asking God what was happening to her and asking the courage to resist accuseds physical advances
Finally, she informed him that she would not continue with the research. The accused retorted that complainant
was entertaining malice.
A week later, Juliet told her sister about the incident. On 16 December 1995, she attempted to slash her wrist with
a fastener right after relating the incident to her mother.
Dr. Adaza, a psychological counseling expert, would later testify that Juliet, together with her sister, came to see
her on 21 December 1995, and that Juliet appeared to be emotionally disturbed, blaming herself for being so
stupid as to allow Dr. Jacutin to molest her. Dr. Adaza concluded that Juliets frustration was due to post trauma
stress.

ISSUE: WON Dr. Jacutin is guilty of sexual harassment?

RATIO
YES. Sexual harassment in a work-related or employment environment is committed when the sexual favor is made as a
condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-employment or continued employment of said individual,

Petitioner was the City Health Officer of Cagayan de Oro City, a position he held when complainant, a newly graduated
nurse, saw him to enlist his help in her desire to gain employment.

While the City Mayor had the exclusive prerogative in appointing city personnel, it should stand 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 Juliets 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.


(2) The above acts would impair the employee's rights or privileges under existing labor laws; or
(3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee.
If the sexual favor is denied, you would be transferred or would be demoted or discriminated.
Is it necessary that there be a categorical or express request for sexual favor?
o NO. Actions speaks louder than words.
o Domingo v. Rayala: 155831: February 18, 2008

Domingo vs. Rayala
546 SCRA 90

In Domingo vs. Rayala, a case involving a stenographer as the victim and the NLRC Chairman as the perpetrator, the
Supreme Court enunciated that 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. Thus, in holding
and squeezing the victims 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 resound with deafening clarity the unspoken request for a sexual
favor.

CrimNotes Exiled

Page 4 of 7


Facts:
Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo (Domingo), then Stenographic Reporter III at the NLRC, filed a Complaint for sexual harassment
against Chairman Rogelio I. Rayala of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

Rayala, however, posits that for sexual harassment to exist under RA 7877, there must be: (a) demand, request, or
requirement of a sexual favor; (b) the same is made a pre-condition to hiring, re-employment, or continued employment; or
(c) the denial thereof results in discrimination against the employee.

Issue: Did Rayala commit sexual harassment?

Held: Yes, Rayala committed sexual harassment.

Ratio:
It is true that Section 3, RA 7877, calls for a demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor. But it is not necessary that
the demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor be articulated in a categorical oral or written statement. It may be
discerned, with equal certitude, from the acts of the offender. All of the acts of Rayala resound with deafening clarity the
unspoken request for a sexual favor.

Likewise, contrary to Rayalas 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 respondents acts result in creating an
intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the employee.

(b) In an education or training environment, sexual harassment is committed:
(1) Against one who is under the care, custody or supervision of the offender;
(2) Against one whose education, training, apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted to the offender;
(3) When the sexual favor is made a condition to the giving of a passing grade, or the granting of honors and scholarships,
or the payment of a stipend, allowance or other benefits, privileges, or consideration; or
(4) When the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the student, trainee or
apprentice.
Any person who directs or induces another to commit any act of sexual harassment as herein defined, or who cooperates in
the commission thereof by another, without which it would not have been committed, shall also be held liable under this
Act.

What if the victim is a minor?
o Liable under RA 7610 Child Abuse, Sec. 5 (d)
Take note! Violation of this law, you could also be charged without prejudice to criminal liability under the RPC.
o Sexual harassment and Unjust vexation if made in public
o Sexual harassment and Acts of Lasciviousness
Another case similar to Rayala
o Bacsin vs. Wahiman :April 30, 2008

G.R. No. 146053, April 30, 2008
DIOSCORO F. BACSIN, petitioner, vs. EDUARDO O. WAHIMAN, respondent.

FACTS: Petitioner is a public school teacher of Pandan Elementary School. Respondent Eduardo O. Wahiman is the father of
AAA, an elementary school student of the petitioner.

AAA claimed that on August 16, 1995, petitioner asked her to be at his office to do an errand. Once inside, she saw him get
a folder from one of the cartons on the floor near his table, and place it on his table. He then asked her to come closer, and
when she did, held her hand, then touched and fondled her breast. She stated that he fondled her breast five times, and
that she felt afraid. A classmate of hers, one Vincent B. Sorrabas, claiming to have witnessed the incident, testified that the

CrimNotes Exiled

Page 5 of 7

fondling incident did happen just as AAA related it.

In his defense, petitioner claimed that the touching incident happened by accident, just as he was handing AAA a lesson
book. He further stated that the incident happened in about two or three seconds, and that the girl left his office without
any complaint.

CSC found petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct (Acts of Sexual Harassment), and dismissed him from the service.
Specifically, the CSC found the petitioner to have committed an act constituting sexual harassment, as defined in Sec. 3 of
Republic Act No. (RA) 7877, the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995.

CA determined that the issue revolved around petitioners right to due process, and based on its finding that petitioner had
the opportunity to be heard, found that there was no violation of that right. The CA ruled that, even if petitioner was
formally charged with disgraceful and immoral conduct and misconduct, the CSC found that the allegations and evidence
sufficiently proved petitioners guilt of grave misconduct, punishable by dismissal from the service.

Petitioner argues that the CSC cannot validly adjudge him guilty of an offense, such as Grave Misconduct (Acts of Sexual
Harassment), different from that specified in the formal charge which was Misconduct. He further argues that the
offense of Misconduct does not include the graver offense of Grave Misconduct.

ISSUE: WON petitioner is guilty of Sexual Harassment

HELD: The formal charge, while not specifically mentioning RA 7877, The Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, imputes on
the petitioner acts covered and penalized by said law.

Contrary to the argument of petitioner, the demand of a sexual favor need not be explicit or stated. In Domingo v. Rayala, it
was held, It is true that this provision calls for a demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor. But it is not necessary
that the demand, request, or requirement of a sexual favor be articulated in a categorical oral or written statement. It may
be discerned, with equal certitude, from the acts of the offender.

The CSC found, as did the CA, that even without an explicit demand from petitioner his act of mashing the breast of AAA
was sufficient to constitute sexual harassment. Moreover, under Section 3 (b) (4) of RA 7877, sexual harassment in an
education or training environment is committed (w)hen the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or offensive
environment for the student, trainee or apprentice. AAA even testified that she felt fear at the time petitioner touched
her.

In grave misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule
must be manifest.14 The act of petitioner of fondling one of his students is against a law, RA 7877, and is doubtless
inexcusable. The particular act of petitioner cannot in any way be construed as a case of simple misconduct.

He is dismissed from service

Petitioner was not denied due process of law, contrary to his claims. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to
be heard, or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek for a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. It is clear that petitioner was sufficiently informed of the basi s of the
charge against him, which was his act of improperly touching one of his students. Thus informed, he defended himself from
such charge. The failure to designate the offense specifically and with precision is of no moment in this administrative case.

Section 4. Duty of the Employer or Head of Office in a Work-related, Education or Training Environment.
It shall be the duty of the employer or the head of the work-related, educational or training environment or institution,
to prevent or deter the commission of acts of sexual harassment and to provide the procedures for the resolution,
settlement or prosecution of acts of sexual harassment. Towards this end, the employer or head of office shall:


CrimNotes Exiled

Page 6 of 7

(a) Promulgate appropriate rules and regulations in consultation with and joint1y approved by the
employees or students or trainees, through their duly designated representatives, prescribing the
procedure for the investigation of sexual harassment cases and the administrative sanctions therefor.
Administrative sanctions shall not be a bar to prosecution in the proper courts for unlawful acts of
sexual harassment.
The said rules and regulations issued pursuant to this subsection (a) shall include, among others,
guidelines on proper decorum in the workplace and educational or training institutions.

(b) Create a committee on decorum and investigation of cases on sexual harassment. The committee shall
conduct meetings, as the case may be, with officers and employees, teachers, instructors, professors,
coaches, trainors, and students or trainees to increase understanding and prevent incidents of sexual
harassment. It shall also conduct the investigation of alleged cases constituting sexual harassment.
In the case of a work-related environment, the committee shall be composed of at least one (1) representative each from
the management, the union, if any, the employees from the supervisory rank, and from the rank and file employees.

In the case of the educational or training institution, the committee shall be composed of at least one (1) representative
from the administration, the trainors, instructors, professors or coaches and students or trainees, as the case may be.

The employer or head of office, educational or training institution shall disseminate or post a copy of this Act for the
information of all concerned.

Duty of the Employer or Head of Office in a Work-related, Education or Training Environment
It is the duty of the employer or the head of the work-related, educational or training environment or institution,
to:
o prevent or deter the commission of acts of sexual harassment and
o to provide the procedures for the resolution, settlement or prosecution of acts of sexual harassment.
Towards this end, the employer or head of office shall:
(a) Promulgate appropriate rules and regulations in consultation with and jointly approved by the employees or students or
trainees, through their duly designated representatives, prescribing the procedure for the investigation of sexual
harassment cases and the administrative sanctions therefor.

Administrative sanctions shall not be a bar to prosecution in the proper courts for unlawful acts of sexual harassment.
The offended party can file administrative cases as well as criminal cases and civil case

The said rules and regulations issued pursuant to this subsection (a) shall include, among others, guidelines on proper
decorum in the workplace and educational or training institutions.
(b) Create a committee on decorum and investigation of cases on sexual harassment. The committee shall conduct
meetings, as the case may be, with officers and employees, teachers, instructors, professors, coaches, trainors, and
students or trainees to increase understanding and prevent incidents of sexual harassment. It shall also conduct the
investigation of alleged cases constituting sexual harassment.
CoDI Committee on Decorum and Investigation

Section 5. Liability of the Employer, Head of Office, Educational or Training Institution.
The employer or head of office, educational or training institution shall be solidarily liable for damages arising from the
acts of sexual harassment committed in the employment, education or training environment if the employer or head of
office, educational or training institution is informed of such acts by the offended party and no immediate action is
taken.

Liability of the Employer, Head of Office, Educational or Training Institution
The employer or head of office, educational or training institution shall be solidarily liable for damages arising
from the acts of sexual harassment committed in the employment, education or training environment if the

CrimNotes Exiled

Page 7 of 7

employer or head of office, educational or training institution is informed of such acts by the offended party and
no immediate action is taken.
When the employer is informed, he must at once take immediate action. The employer must conduct investigation
as to whether the offender is liable.
Failure of the employer: solidarily liable

Section 6. Independent Action for Damages.
Nothing in this Act shall preclude the victim of work, education or training related sexual harassment from instituting a
separate and independent action for damages and other affirmative relief.

Section 7. Penalties.
Any person who violates the provisions of this Act shall, upon conviction, be penalized by imprisonment of not less than
one (1) month nor more than six (6) months, or a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000) nor more than
Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000), or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

Any action arising from the violation of the provisions of this Act shall prescribe in three (3) years.

Penalties
Penalized by imprisonment of not less than one (1) month nor more than six (6) months,
or a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000) nor more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000),
or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

Any action arising from the violation of the provisions of this Act shall prescribe in three (3) years.

Only applicable to:
o Work
o Training or education

Section 8. Separability Clause.
If any portion or provision of this Act is declared void or unconstitutional, the remaining portions or provisions hereof
shall not be affected by such declaration.

Section 9. Repealing Clause.
All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations, other issuances, or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this
Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 10. Effectivity Clause.
This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) national newspapers of general
circulation.