However, in sexual harassment cases, the acts complained of must be in consonance with human experience. In Digitel vs.

Soriano, the Director for

Market and Communications sued her superiors, which were the Senior Vice-President and Senior Executive Vice- President. The woman filed a complaint
for sexual harassment 11 months after she tendered her resignation. The woman claimed that during a company party, while they were seated in the sofa,
one of the perpetrators crept his hand under a throw pillow and poked her vagina several times. She justified her failure to flee by claiming that she was
hemmed in by the arm of the sofa. Furthermore, she claimed that thereafter, when she was dancing with one of the perpetrators, the latter groped her
breasts and buttocks.

In this case, the Supreme Court did not give credence to the allegations of the woman and dismissed the charges of sexual harassment. The Supreme
Court ratiocinated that if indeed the perpetrators performed the condemnable act, why didnt the woman slap the perpetrators and left the event. The
Supreme Court further held that any woman in her right mind, whose vagina had earlier been poked several times without her consent and against her
will, would, after liberating herself from the clutches of the person who offended her, raise hell.

RA 7877 mandates that the employer or the head of the work-related, educational or training environment or institution must provide the procedures for
the resolution, settlement or prosecution of acts of sexual harassment. The employer must create a committee on decorum and investigation of cases on
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.

In Narvasa vs. Sanchez, a senior bookkeeper filed a case for sexual harassment against the municipal assessor. In the said case, the respondent handed
notes to the victim Gay, I like you., as well as text messages saying Ka date ko si Mary Gay ang tamis ng halik mo. , Pauwi ka na ba sexy?, I slept
and dreamt nice things about you., Have a date with me., among others. He would also whisper to the victim Oy flawless, pumanaw ka met ditan
while twice pinching her upper left arm near the shoulder in a slow manner. Furthermore, during a field trip, the respondent tried to kiss the victim. In such
case, the Supreme Court held the respondent guilty of sexual harassment.

Commission of sexual harassment is a criminal offense. A person found guilty of sexual harassment shall 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. Any person who directs or induces another to commit any act of sexual harassment, or who cooperates in the commission thereof by another
without which it would not have been committed, shall also be held liable under for sexual harassment.

Damages resulting from sexual harassment may be separately and independently instituted. In fact, 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.
The first case involved a Municipal Assessor of Diadi, Nueva Viscaya and 3 female subordinates who were subjected to a series of physical, verbal and other forms of sexual
assaults. In TGN vs. BAS Jr. (GR 169449), the Supreme Court, En Banc, ordered on March 26, 2010, the dismissal of that assessor, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and
perpetual disqualification from holding any office in government and its corporations. The victims could also file criminal charges on top of the administrative complaint. The
court even called him a perverted predator preying on his victim with unwelcome affections, in such alarming frequency and increasing boldness.

In PAAUC vs. RCC (GR 124617), the Supreme Court, on April 28, 2000, awarded moral and exemplary damages in favor of a company nurse who, for 4 years, was subjected
to all forms of sexual harassment, and later, verbal and psychological pressures for refusing to surrender her womanhood to the plant manager. Her dismissal was declared
illegal and her resignation was deemed involuntary. The court was not moved by the companys argument that it took her 4 years to complain. Not many women, especially in
this country, are made of stuff that can endure the agony and trauma of a corporate and public scandal. She was fighting a powerful man and she was alone, trying to defend
her honor. And so, she stretched her patience until a critical incident took place.

Sexual harassment is an imposition of a misplaced superiority that is enough to wreck a womans life, affect her sense of judgment and cause her irreparable pain. The court is
more compassionate to the victim. However, if the victims story is incredible, and defies human logic, the court will not hesitate to exonerate the alleged offenders. In DTC vs.
MS (GR166039), the SC dismissed a story of a very articulate and well-educated 40-year-old female Director for Marketing Communications who accused her EVP and SVP of,
among others, poking her sexual organ during a corporate party attended by no less than 60 company officials and guests. Interestingly, the one who penned this ruling is a
woman, a no ordinary lady, former Supreme Court Justice Carpio-Morales, now Ombudsman. The problem of the victim here is that she waited for so long and did not explain
her delay, unlike in the case of the harassed company nurse. But this case is a very exceptional one. In most cases, the victim always wins.

Sexual harassment is not about just sex. Its about power. It is a blatant abuse of power. It is a betrayal of public trust, a breach of confidence, reprehensible, despicable and
abominable. Lets all combat it.

Freeman ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch:

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.