A Seminar on Sexual Harassment

Atty. Ida Marie V. Escolano

Republic Act No. 7877

AN ACT DECLARING SEXUAL HARASSMENT
UNLAWFUL IN THE EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION
OR TRAINING ENVIRONMENT, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995.
Approved February 14, 1995.

Acts Penalized: WET (Sec. 3)

RA 7877 punishes sexual harassment if the same
is:
Work-related
Education-related
Training-related

Who may be liable for Sexual

Harassment? (Sec. 3)
IN WORK ENVIRONMENT
by any employer, employee, manager, supervisor,
agent of the employer

IN EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT
by any teacher, instructor, professor

IN TRAINING ENVIRONMENT
By any coach or trainor

Who may be liable for Sexual

Harassment? (Sec. 3)
any 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.

How is SH committed in the

workplace? (Sec. 3)
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;

QUID PRO QUO SEXUAL HARASSMENT

How is SH committed in the

workplace? (Sec. 3)
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.

HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT SEXUAL
HARASSMENT

Domingo vs. Rayala

(G.R.155831, February 18, 2008)

QUID PRO QUO SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Lourdes Domingo is an employee of NLRC.
Rogelio Rayala is NLRC Chairman.
Domingo complained of sexual harassment
against Rayala and executed an affidavit:
Sa simula ay pabulong na sinasabihan lang ako
ni Chairman Rayala ng mga salitang "Lot,
gumaganda ka yata?"

Domingo vs. Rayala

(G.R.155831, February 18, 2008)

Sa ibang mga pagkakataon nilalapitan na ako ni

Chairman at hahawakan ang aking balikat
sabay pisil sa mga ito habang ako ay nagta-type
at habang nagbibigay siya ng diktasyon. Sa mga
pagkakataong ito, kinakabahan ako. Natatakot
na baka mangyari sa akin ang mga
napapabalitang insidente na nangyari na noon
tungkol sa mga sekretarya niyang nagbitiw
gawa ng mga mahahalay na panghihipo ni
Chairman.

Domingo vs. Rayala

(G.R.155831, February 18, 2008)

Chairman: Lot, I like you a lot. Naiiba ka sa lahat.

Chairman: May boyfriend ka na ba?
Lourdes: Dati nagkaroon po.
Chairman: Nasaan na siya?
Lourdes: Nag-asawa na ho.
Chairman: Bakit hindi kayo nagkatuluyan?
Lourdes: Nainip po.
Chairman: Pagkatapos mo ng kurso mo ay
kumuha ka ng Law at ako ang bahala sa iyo,
hanggang ako pa ang Chairman dito.

Domingo vs. Rayala

(G.R.155831, February 18, 2008)

Rayala argued that Domingo has failed to allege

and establish any sexual favor, demand, or
request in exchange for her continued
employment or for her promotion. It was
merely Domingos perception of malice in his
alleged acts a "product of her own
imagination" .

Domingo vs. Rayala

(G.R.155831, February 18, 2008)

Supreme Court ruled:

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. 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.

Domingo vs. Rayala

(G.R.155831, February 18, 2008)

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. That the acts of Rayala generated
an intimidating and hostile environment for
Domingo is clearly shown that Domingo filed for a
leave of absence and requested transfer to another
unit.

Domingo vs. Rayala

(G.R.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.

Chua vs. NLRC & Cortez

(G.R.124617, April 28, 2000)

HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Rosalinda Cortez was disciplined by her employer
and was eventually dismissed from her work,
among others for throwing a stapler at Plant
Manager William Chua, her superior, and uttering
invectives against him.
Cortez claims that her Plant Manager, William
Chua, already manifested a special liking for her,
so much so that she was receiving special
treatment from him who would often times invite
her "for a date," which she would as often refuse.

Chua vs. NLRC & Cortez

(G.R.124617, April 28, 2000)

On many occasions, he would make sexual

advances touching her hands, putting his arms
around her shoulders, running his fingers on her
arms and telling her she looked beautiful. The
special treatment and sexual advances continued
during her employment for four (4) years but she
never reciprocated his flirtations, until finally, she
noticed that his attitude towards her changed. He
made her understand that if she would not give in
to his sexual advances he would cause her
termination from the service; and he made good
his threat when he started harassing her.

Chua vs. NLRC & Cortez

(G.R.124617, April 28, 2000)

She just found out one day that her table which
was equipped with telephone and intercom
units and containing her personal belongings
was transferred without her knowledge to a
place with neither telephone nor intercom, for
which reason, an argument ensued when she
confronted William Chua resulting in her being
charged with gross disrespect.

Chua vs. NLRC & Cortez

(G.R.124617, April 28, 2000)

The gravamen of the offense in sexual

harassment is not the violation of the
employee's sexuality but the abuse of power by
the employer.

Chua vs. NLRC & Cortez

(G.R.124617, April 28, 2000)

One may not be expected to give up one's employment

easily but to hang on to it, so to speak, by all tolerable
means. Perhaps, to private respondent's mind, for as long as
she could outwit her employer's ploys she would continue on
her job and consider them as mere occupational hazards.
This uneasiness in her place of work thrived in an
atmosphere of tolerance for four (4) years, and one could
only imagine the prevailing anxiety and resentment, if not
bitterness, that beset her all that time. But William Chua
faced reality soon enough. Since he had no place in
private respondent's heart, so must she have no place in
his office. So, he provoked her, harassed her, and finally
dislodged her; and for finally venting her pent-up anger
for years, he "found" the perfect reason to terminate her.

Administrative Order 250

FORMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
a) Overt sexual advances;
b) Unwelcome or improper gestures of affection;
c) Request or demand for sexual favors including
but not limited to going out on dates, outings or
the like for the same purpose;
d) Any other act or conduct of a sexual nature or
for purposes of sexual gratification which is
generally annoying, disgusting or offensive to the
victim.
(Domingo vs. Rayala, G.R.155831, February 18, 2008)

How is SH in education or training

environment? (Sec. 3)
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.

Duty of Employer or Head of Office

(Sec. 4)
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.

Duty of Employer or Head of Office

(Sec. 4)
1. 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.
2. 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.

Villarama vs. NLRC

(G.R.106341, September 2, 1994)

As a managerial employee, petitioner is bound

by a more exacting work ethics. He failed to
live up to this higher standard of responsibility
when he succumbed to his moral perversity.
And when such moral perversity is perpetrated
against his subordinate, he provides justifiable
ground for his dismissal for lack of trust and
confidence. It is the right, nay, the duty of
every employer to protect its employees
from over sexed superiors.

Solidary Liability for Damages (Sec. 5)

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.

Independent Action for Damages

(Sec. 6)
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.

Penalties(Sec. 7)
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.

Art. 282, Labor Code

An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following
causes:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of

the lawful orders of his employer or representative in
connection with his work;
Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in
him by his employer or duly authorized representative;
Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the
person of his employer or any immediate member of his family
or his duly authorized representatives; and
Other causes analogous to the foregoing.

Villarama vs. NLRC

(G.R.106341, September 2, 1994)

Sexual harassment abounds in all sick societies.

It is reprehensible enough but more so when
inflicted by those with moral ascendancy over
their victims. We rule that it is a valid cause for
separation from service.

The charge for sexual harassment must be

substantiated by the complainant-employee.
An employee, male or female, may charge an
employer or superior with sexual harassment but
the claim must be well-substantiated.

Aquino vs. Acosta

(A.M. No. CTA-01-1, April 2, 2002)

The complainant failed to show by convincing

evidence that the acts of Judge Acosta in
greeting her with a kiss on the cheek, in a
'beso-beso' fashion, were carried out with
lustful and lascivious desires or were motivated
by malice or ill-motive. It is clear under the
circumstances that most of the kissing incidents
were done on festive and special occasions.

Protecting Yourself Against Sexual

Harassment
Sexual harassment can happen to anyone but no matter what, nobody
deserves to be harassed or made uncomfortable. To protect yourself,
do the following:

1.Know your rights.

2.Establish your personal rules at the start.
3.Dont cry wolf.
4.Avoid being alone with the person harassing you.
5.Document the incident/s.
6.File a complaint.
7.Ask for support.
8.Have your own legal support.

Chua-Qua vs. Clave

(G.R.49549, August 30, 1990)

30 year old Evelyn Chua had been teaching at

Tay Tung High School where she was assigned to
handle a sixth grade class.
There she met Bobby Qua, one of her students.
The two was hooked up after Evelyn was
tasked to render tutorial services for Bobby.
The student-teacher relationship had gone
another notch when the two fell in love, and
they married.

Chua-Qua vs. Clave

(G.R.49549, August 30, 1990)

Tay Tung High School filed a clearance to

terminate Evelyn at the sub-regional office of
Department of Labor on the grounds of
abusive and unethical conduct unbecoming of
a dignified school teacher and that her
continued employment is inimical to the best
interest, and would downgrade the high moral
values, of the school. She was considered
immoral so to speak.

Chua-Qua vs. Clave

(G.R.49549, August 30, 1990)

The Arbiter decided that although there is no

substantial evidence of immoral acts between
Evelyn and Bobby, the mere fact that they had
a relationship was a proof that such immoral
acts had transpired inside the schools
premises.
Evelyn was terminated from the services, and
she appealed the decision of the Arbiter.

Chua-Qua vs. Clave

(G.R.49549, August 30, 1990)

If the two eventually fell in love, despite the

disparity in their ages and academic levels, this
only lends substance to the truism that the heart
has reasons of its own which reason does not
know. But, definitely, yielding to this gentle and
universal emotion is not to be so casually
equated with immorality. The deviation of the
circumstances of their marriage from the usual
societal pattern cannot be considered as a
defiance of contemporary social mores.

DUNCAN ASSOCIATION OF DETAILMAN-PTGWO , Vs.

Glaxo Wellcome. [G.R. No. 162994. September 17, 2004]
Tecson was hired by respondent Glaxo
Wellcome. He signed a contract of employment
which stipulates, among others, that he agrees
to study and abide by existing company rules;
to disclose to management any existing or
future relationship by consanguinity or affinity
with employees of competing drug companies
and should management find that such
relationship poses a possible conflict of
interest, to resign from the company.

DUNCAN ASSOCIATION OF DETAILMAN-PTGWO , Vs.

Glaxo Wellcome. [G.R. No. 162994. September 17, 2004]
Tecson entered into a romantic relationship
with Bettsy, an employee of Astra
Pharmaceuticals (Astra), a competitor of Glaxo.
Tecsons superiors informed him that his
marriage to Bettsy gave rise to a conflict of
interest. xxx Glaxo transferred Tecson to the
Butuan City-Surigao City-Agusan del Sur sales
area. Tecson refused such transfer.

DUNCAN ASSOCIATION OF DETAILMAN-PTGWO , Vs.

Glaxo Wellcome. [G.R. No. 162994. September 17, 2004]
Glaxos policy prohibiting an employee from
having a relationship with an employee of a
competitor company is a valid exercise of
management prerogative.
Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets,
manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies
and other confidential programs and
information from competitors, especially so
that it and Astra are rival companies in the
highly competitive pharmaceutical industry.

DUNCAN ASSOCIATION OF DETAILMAN-PTGWO , Vs.

Glaxo Wellcome. [G.R. No. 162994. September 17, 2004]
The prohibition against personal or marital
relationships with employees of competitor companies
upon Glaxos employees is reasonable.
An employee of the company remains free to marry
anyone of his or her choosing. The policy is not aimed
at restricting a personal prerogative. However, an
employees personal decision does not detract the
employer from exercising management prerogatives to
ensure maximum profit and business success.

EMPLOYEES RIGHTS

What is the Labor Code of the

Philippines?
Presidential Decree 442, as amended.
Was enacted on May 1, 1974 and took effect six
months thereafter.
stands as the law governing employment
practices and labor relations in the Philippines.
Can be sub-classified into two main parts: (1)
Labor Standards and (2) Labor Relations.

What is Labor Standards?

refers to that part of labor law which prescribes
the minimum terms and conditions of
employment which the employer is required to
grant to its employees.

working conditions, wages, hours of work,
holiday pay and other benefits, conditions of
employment of women, minors, househelpers
and homeworkers, termination of employment
and retirement.

What is Labor Relations?

refers to that part of labor law which regulates
the relations between employers and employees.
labor organizations, collective bargaining,
grievance machinery, voluntary arbitration,
conciliation and mediation, unfair labor
practices, strikes, picketing and lockout.

Sources of Labor Laws

P.D.442, as amended by R.A. 6715

Implementing Rules and Regulations by DOLE
Supreme Court Decisions (Art.8, Civil Code)
Special Laws (i.e., Migrant Workers Act, AntiSexual Harassment Law, Magna Carta Law for
Private School Teachers)

Rule on Implementation and

interpretation of labor laws
Art. 4, Labor Code
All doubts in the implementation and
interpretation of the provision of this Code,
including the implementing rules and
regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.

Does that mean that the law is always

in favor of labor?
It is not correct to think that the aim of the law is
always to favor labor. The mandate under Art. 4
is simply to resolve doubt, if any, in favor of
labor. If there is no doubt in implementing and
interpreting the law, labor will enjoy no built-in
advantage and the law will have to be applied as
it is.

What is the protection-to-labor clause?

As enunciated in Section 3, Article XIII of the 1987
Constitution, The State shall afford full protection
to labor, local and overseas, organized and
unorganized, and promote full employment and
equality of employment opportunities for all. It
shall guarantee the rights of all workers to selforganization, collective bargaining and
negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities,
including the right to strike in accordance with law.
They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane
conditions of work, and a living wage. xxx

Employees Rights as stated in the

Labor Code
i) Employment Standards
(1) minimum age Art 139, PLC
(2) non discrimination Art 3, Art 135, PLC
(3) regularization Art 280-281, PLC
(4) subcontracting Art 106, PLC
(5) security of tenure Art 279, PLC
(6) night work for women Art 130, PLC
(7) forced labor Art 114, 116, PLC

Employees Rights as stated in the

Labor Code
ii) Workers right
(1) to self organize Art 3, PLC
(2) to strike Art 263-264, PLC
(3) to collective bargaining Art 253-A, PLC
(4) to arbitration Art 260, PLC

Employees Rights as stated in the

Labor Code
iii) Wages
(1) minimum wage Art 99, 120-127
(2) Overtime pay Art 87, PLC
(3) Premium pay on holidays and rest day Art
93-94, PLC
(4) night shift pay Art 86, PLC
(5) 13th month pay PD 851
(6) non diminution of pay Art 100, PLC

Employees Rights as stated in the

Labor Code
iv) Hours of work
(1) 8 hours Art 83, PLC
(2) meal periods Art 85, PLC
(3) weekly rest periods Art 91-92, PLC
(4) Paternity leave RA 8187

Employees Rights as stated in the

Labor Code
v) Health and Safety
(1) Paid maternity leave Art 133, PLC
(2) Medical and dental services Art 156-161 PLC
(3) Health and safety Art 162-165
(4) Sexual Harassment RA 7877
(5) Health Insurance (PhilHealth) RA 7875

Employees Rights as stated in the

Labor Code
vi) Social Security
(1) Employee Compensation Art 166, PLC
(2) Social Security RA 1161 or
(3) GSIS law RA 8291