GROUP 2

AGRARIAN REFORM LAW with SOCIAL LEGISLATION

RA 7877 – Anti-Sexual Harassment Act
RA 10606 – National Health Insurance Act of 2013
Tangan, Brendan Jansen L.
Donayre, Myzel U.
Ilarde, Beatriz Elaine M.
Pascual, Evangeline P.
Dugayon, Iverson
Flores, Michael P.
ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACT (RA 7877)
WHAT IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT?

It is an act or a series of acts involving any unwelcome sexual advance,

request or demand for a sexual favor, or other verbal or physical behavior
of a sexual nature, committed by a government employee or official in a
work-related, training- or education- related environment.

WHAT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT?

Sexual harassment, which has been declared unlawful in the workplace,

training and education environments, will not be tolerated as it violates the
dignity and human rights of a person.

WHAT IS THE PRESENT LAW ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT?

R.A. 7877, an “Act Declaring Sexual Harassment Unlawful in the

Employment, Education or Training Environment and for other purposes”
was approved on February 14, 1995 and became effective on March 5,
1995, fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Malaya and Times Journal
on February 18, 1995. It is known as “The Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of
1995.”

WHAT IS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (CSC) RESOLUTION NO. 01-0940?

It is known as the Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual Harassment

Cases.

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF CSC RESOLUTION NO. 01-0940 TO PRIOR

ISSUANCES OF THE CSC AND THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT?

It supersedes or repeals prior CSC issuances such as MC No. 19, s. 1994 and
CSC Res. 95-6161. DOLE Administrative Order No. 250, s. 1995 has to be
amended accordingly or replaced altogether, in consonance with the
changes made in the new CSC Rules on Sexual Harassment.

WHERE CAN SEXUAL HARASSMENT BE COMMITTED UNDER THE

PROVISIONS OF CSC RESOLUTION NO. 01-0940?

Sexual harassment may take place:

1. in the premises of the workplace or office or of the school or

training institution;
 2. in any place where the parties were found, as a result of work or
education or training responsibilities or relations;

3. at work or education- or training-related social functions;

4. while on official business outside the office or school or training

institution or during work or school or training-related travel;

5. at official conferences, fora, symposia or training sessions; or

6. by telephone, cellular phone, fax machine or electronic mail.

WHEN IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMMITTED IN THE EMPLOYMENT OR

WORK-RELATED ENVIRONMENT?

Work-related sexual harassment is committed when:

1. the submission to or rejection of the act or series of acts is used as

basis for any employment decision (including but not limited to,
matters related to hiring, promotion, raises in salary, job security,
benefits and any other personnel action) affecting the
applicant/employee; or

2. the act or series of acts have the purpose or effect of interfering

with the complainant’s work performance, or creating an
intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment; or

3. the act or series of acts might reasonably be expected to cause

discrimination, insecurity, discomfort, offense or humiliation to a
complainant who may be a co-employee, applicant, customer, or
ward of the person complained of.

- start of case -

MA. LOURDES T. DOMINGO, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.

ROGELIO I. RAYALA

GR Nos. 155831, 155840, 155870

Facts:

Domingo, Stenographer III at NLRC, filed a complaint for sexual

harassment against Rayala, then Chairman of NLRC, saying that there were
circumstances and acts by him amounting to the crime. These acts included
the following:

- Rayala whispering to her “Lot, gumaganda ka yata”

- Going near her to squeeze her shoulder when she types his
dictations which made her feel anxious, thinking of the other stories
about his past secretaries who resigned because of obscenely touching
them

- She was called to his office to correct her paper but while in
there, Rayala told her “I like you a lot. Naiiba ka sa lahat.”

- He kept asking personal questions.

- He told her to study law at his expense and gave her money.
Domingo took the money for fear that she might lose her job if she does
not. Rayala asked her to keep these things between them. Because of
great fear, she told her officemate Agnes Magdaet who advised her to
give the money back, which she did.

- They even had a conversation about her hips which he

described as “malaki” accusing her of having a live-in partner. They also
had a conversation about marriage.

- After she used the fax machine in his office, he blocked her
way, looked at her intently from her head to her breasts, then he smiled
maliciously.

- While she was typing his dictations in his office, he again went
close to her, squeezed her shoulder, slid his hand up to her neck and
tickled her ear. She felt so uncomfortable that she shouted, “Sir, yung
kamay ninyo, alisin niyo!” She then filed for leave of absence and asked
to be transferred.

She filed her complaint basing on AO 250 (Rules and Regulations

Implementing RA 7877 – Anti-Sexual Harassment Act) in DOLE. Dole
referred the complaint to the Office of the President which created The
Committee for the purpose of investigating the allegations and found
Rayala guilty. The Committee penalized him with suspension for 6 months
and 1 day. Upon more careful scrutiny, the Committee modified their
decision, now dismissing Rayala on the ground that public service is a public
trust, especially of such high position as his. Rayala filed for reconsideration
which was denied, where he filed a petition for certiorari.
 The CA affirmed committee decision saying that there is sufficient
evidence to create moral certainty that Rayala committed the acts. They
also upheld the dismissal based on RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees) for disgraceful and immoral
conduct. Sexual harassment amounts to and may be a basis of culpability
for disgraceful and immoral conduct under AO 250. But upon motion for
reconsideration, CA modified penalty to only suspension for one year.

Rayala filed petition for review saying that his acts do not constitute
sexual harassment as contemplated in RA 7877. Domingo assailed
modification of Rayala’s penalty.

Issues:

1. Whether Rayala’s acts constitute Sexual Harassment.

2. Whether Rayala’s penalty should be suspension or dismissal.

Ruling:

1. Yes. Section 3 of RA 7877 defines work-related sexual harassment:

Sec. 3. Work, Education or Training-related Sexual Harassment

Defined. Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is
committed by an employer, 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, conditions, promotions, or privileges; or refusal to grant
sexual favor results in limiting, segregating, or classifying the
employee which in a way would discriminate, deprive or diminish
employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said
employee;
 2. The above acts would impair the employee’s rights or
privileges under existing labor laws;

3. The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile,

or offensive environment for the employee.

Contrary to what Rayala contends, sexual harassment does not

require that the demand, request or requirement for sexual favor be oral or
written. It may be discerned from the acts of the offender. It is clear that
his acts are “unspoken requests for sexual favor.”

It is also not essential that such be made a condition for employment

or promotion. It is enough that it results to an intimidating, hostile or
offensive environment for the employee. Domingo experienced this when
she opted to report the matter to her officemate, file for leave of absence
and requested for transfer.

Rayala failed to prove any ill motive on the part of Domingo and her
witnesses which would be ample reason for them to make up these stories.
In fact, ill motive is belied as they stood up to lose their jobs or suffer
unpleasant consequences for filing complaint.

- end of case -

2. Suspension is the proper penalty.

Under the Labor Code, the Chairman of the NLRC shall hold office
during good behavior until she reaches the age of sixty-five, unless sooner
removed for causes provided by law.

While the President is the proper authority to determine whether

there is a valid cause for removal of an appointed official, he does not have
authority to impose penalty other than that provided by law for such
offense. Under Civil Service Rules, disgraceful and immoral conduct is
punishable by suspension for 6 months and 1 day to 1 year upon 1st
offense, and dismissal only after the second offense.

While there is an aggravating circumstance as to Rayala’s offense

(taking advantage of his position) it only imposes maximum penalty, which
is, in this case, 1-year suspension for 1st offense.

WHEN IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMMITTED IN AN EDUCATION OR

TRAINING ENVIRONMENT?

Education or training related sexual harassment is committed when:

 1. the submission to or rejection of the act or series of acts is used as
a basis for any decision affecting the complainant, including, but not
limited to, the giving of a grade, the granting of honors or a
scholarship, the payment of a stipend or allowance, or the giving of
any benefit, privilege or consideration; or

2. the act or series of acts have the purpose or effect of interfering

with the performance, or creating an intimidating, hostile or
offensive academic environment of the complainant; or

3. the act or series of acts might reasonably be expected to cause

discrimination, insecurity, discomfort, offense or humiliation to a
complainant who may be a trainee, apprentice, intern, tutee or ward
of the person complained of.

- start of case -

BACSIN VS. WAHIMAN

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 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 petitioner’s 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 petitioner’s 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

Ruling:

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.
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 one’s 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
basis 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.

- end of case -

WHEN IS A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL/EMPLOYEE LIABLE FOR SEXUAL

HARASSMENT?

A government official or employee, regardless of sex, is liable for sexual

harassment when he/she:

1. directly participates in the execution of any act of sexual

harassment as defined by the Administrative Disciplinary Rules on
Sexual Harassment Cases;

2. induces or directs another or others to commit sexual harassment

as defined by these Rules;

3. cooperates in the commission of sexual harassment by another

through an act without which the sexual harassment would not have
been accomplished; or

4. cooperates in the commission of sexual harassment by another

through previous or simultaneous acts.

- start of case -
TERESITA G. NARVASA, Petitioner,

vs.

BENJAMIN A. SANCHEZ, JR., Respondent.

G.R. No. 169449; March 26, 2010

Facts:

The case stemmed from three cases of sexual harassment filed

separately against respondent by petitioner along with Mary Gay P. de la
Cruz and Zenaida M. Gayaton, who are also employees of the LGU.

Gayaton received a text message while she was passing respondent’s

car in front of the municipal hall. The message said, “Pauwi ka na ba sexy?”
Gayaton later verified through respondent’s clerk, Alona Agas, that the
sender of the message was respondent. Gayaton eventually received
several messages from respondent stating: (1) “I like you”; (2) “Have a date
with me”; (3) “Don’t tell to others that I told that I like you because
nakakahiya”; (4) “Puso mo to pag bigay moto sakin, I would be very happy”
and (5) “I slept and dreamt nice things about you.”

Based on the investigation conducted by the LGU’s Committee on

Decorum and Investigation (CODI), respondent was found guilty of all three
charges by the Municipal Mayor. For the offenses committed against De la
Cruz and Gayaton, respondent was meted the penalties of reprimand for
his first offense of light harassment and 30 days’ suspension for his first
offense of less grave sexual harassment. His transgression against
petitioner, however, was deemed to be grave sexual harassment for which
he was dismissed from the government service. As far as petitioner’s
complaint was concerned, she asserted that during a field trip of officers
and members of the St. Joseph Multi-Purpose Cooperative to the Grotto
Vista Resort in Bulacan, respondent pulled her towards him and attempted
to kiss her. Petitioner resisted and was able to escape the clutches of
respondent to rejoin the group that they were travelling with. Respondent
apologized to petitioner thrice regarding that incident.

On appeal, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) passed only on the

decision in the case filed by petitioner since, under the CSC rules, the
penalty of reprimand and/or suspension of not more than 30 days cannot
be appealed. The CSC dismissed the appeal but modified the Mayor’s order
by holding respondent guilty of grave misconduct instead of grave sexual
harassment. The same penalty of dismissal from the service, however, was
meted out to respondent.

Respondent’s next recourse was to the CA which partially granted his

appeal. The CA modified the CSC resolution, finding respondent guilty only
of simple misconduct. Accordingly, the penalty was lowered to suspension
for one month and one day. Petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court
the downgrading of respondent’s offense to simple misconduct.

Issue:

Whether the acts committed by respondent against petitioner (since

the CSC resolution only touched upon petitioner’s complaint) constitute
simple misconduct or grave misconduct?

Held:

The respondent was found guilty of grave misconduct and is ordered

dismissed from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except
accrued leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to re-employment in any
branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned
and controlled corporations.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the CA that neither corruption,

clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established rule
attended the incident in question. RA 7877, the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act
of 1995, took effect on March 5, 1995. Respondent was charged with
knowledge of the existence of this law and its contents, more so because
he was a public servant.

- end of case -

WHAT ARE THE FORMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT?

1. Physical

a. Malicious touching

b. Overt sexual advances

c. Gestures with lewd insinuation

2. Verbal, such as but not limited to, requests or demands for sexual
favors, and lurid remarks
 3. Use of objects, pictures or graphics, letters or written notes with
sexual underpinnings

4. Other forms analogous to the foregoing.

WHAT ARE THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON DECORUM AND

INVESTIGATION (CODI) IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASES?

The CODI shall:

1. Receive complaints of sexual harassment;

2. Investigate sexual harassment complaints in accordance with the

prescribed procedure;

3. Submit a report of its findings with the corresponding

recommendation to the disciplining authority for decision; and

4. Lead in the conduct of discussions about sexual harassment within

the agency or institution to increase understanding and prevent
incidents of sexual harassment.

WHAT IS THE COMPOSITION OF THE CODI?

At least one (1) representative each from:

1. In a work-related environment:

i. the management

ii. the accredited union (if any)

iii. the first level employees iv. the second level employees

2. In an educational/training institution:

i. the administrator

ii. the trainers, teachers, instructors, professors or coaches

iii. the students or trainees

The term of office of the members of the CODI shall not be more than two
(2) years.

AT THE PRE-FILING STAGE, WHAT ASSISTANCE CAN THE AGENCY PROVIDE

TO AN ALLEGED VICTIM OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT?
The agency may adopt mechanism to provide assistance to an alleged
victim of sexual harassment which may include:

1. counseling;

2. referral to an agency offering professional help; and

3. advice or options available before the filing of the complaint.

WHAT ARE THE STANDARD PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS IN HANDLING A

SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE?

1. When can a complaint for sexual harassment be filed?

Anytime.

2. With whom can a complaint file a complaint for sexual harassment

be filed?

With the disciplining authority of the office/ agency; or with

the Committee on Decorum and Investigation. Upon receipt of
the complaint, the disciplining authority of the office/agency
shall transmit the same to the CODI, if there is any.

In the absence of a CODI, the head of office/agency shall cause

the creation of a CODI in accordance with the law and rules
and transmit the complaint to said Committee.

3. What are the requirements for a complaint?

It must be in writing, signed and sworn to by the complainant,

and contains the following:

Full name and address of the complainant;

Full name, address, and position of the respondent;

A brief statement of the relevant facts;

Residence, in support of the complaint, if any; and

A certification of non-forum shopping.

In the absence of any one of the aforementioned

requirements, the complaint shall be dismissed without
prejudice to its refilling.
 4. Are complaints sent thru telegram, radiogram, electronic mail or
similar means considered as filed?

Yes, if the requirements provided in Section 12 (b) of

Resolution No. 01-0940 are complied with. In the absence of
the said requirements, the complaint is considered non-filed.
Complainant has to be notified to comply within ten (10) days
from receipt of the notice for compliance.

5. Shall the withdrawal of the complaint at any stage of the

proceedings preclude the CODI from proceeding with the
investigation?

When there is obvious truth or merit to the allegations in the

complaint or where there is documentary or direct evidence
that can prove the guilt of the person complained of, the CODI
can proceed with the investigation.

WHAT WILL BE THE ACTION OF THE CODI ON THE COMPLAINT?

1. Counter-Affidavit/Comment of Person Complained of

Upon receipt of a complaint that is sufficient in form and

substance, the CODI shall require the person complained of to
submit a Counter-Affidavit/Comment under oath within three
(3) days from receipt of the notice, furnishing a copy to the
complainant; otherwise, the Counter-Affidavit/ Comment shall
be considered as not filed.

2. Preliminary Investigation

The CODI shall conduct a preliminary investigation which shall

involve the ex parte examination of documents submitted by
the complainant and the person complained of, as well as
documents readily available from other government offices.

During the preliminary investigation, the parties may submit

affidavits and counter-affidavits.

3. Formal Charge

Upon receipt of the counter-affidavit/comment under oath,

the Committee on Decorum and Investigation may now
recommend whether a prima facie case exists to warrant the
issuance of a formal charge.
 Strict confidentiality of the proceedings during preliminary
investigation by the CODI shall be exercised.

WHAT SHALL BE THE DURATION OF THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION?

The preliminary investigation shall commence not later than five (5) days
from receipt of the complaint by the CODI. It shall be terminated within
fifteen (15) working days thereafter.

WHEN WILL THE CODI SUBMIT ITS INVESTIGATION REPORT ON THE

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION?

The CODI shall submit the Investigation Report and the complete records of
the case to the disciplining authority within five (5) working days from the
termination of the preliminary investigation.

WHAT WILL BE THE ACTION OF THE DISCIPLINING AUTHORITY AFTER

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION?

Within three (3) working days from receipt of the investigation report, the
disciplining authority shall issue a formal charge if a prima facie case is
established during the investigation. If a prima facie case is not established
during the investigation, the complaint shall be dismissed within three (3)
working days from receipt of the investigation report.

WHAT ARE THE CONTENTS OF THE FORMAL CHARGE?

1. A specification of the charge/s;

2. A brief statement of material or relevant facts;

3. Certified true copies of the documentary evidence, if any;

4. Sworn statement covering the testimony of witness/es;

5. A directive to answer the charge/s in writing under oath in not less

than seventy-two (72) hours from receipt thereof;

6. An advice for the respondent to indicate in his/her answer

whether or not he/she elects a formal investigation of the charges;
and

7. A notice that he/she is entitled to be assisted by a counsel of

his/her choice.

- start of case -
YOLANDA FLORALDE, et.al.

Vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, et. al.

G.R. No. 123048 August 8, 2000

Facts:

On April 23, 1994, petitioners employees of the ATI charged

respondent Paulino W. Resma with grave misconduct in office (sexual
harassment) in three separate complaints filed directly with the Civil
Service Commission.

On August 30, 1994, the Commission gave due course to the

complaints and formally charged respondent with grave misconduct
requiring him to submit his answer with the affidavits of his witnesses, and
placed him under preventive suspension for ninety (90) days effective upon
notice.

On September 9, 1994, respondent filed his answer to the

complaints. He specifically denied all the accusations against him and asked
for the dismissal of the complaints.

On September 20, 1994, the Commission resolved to conduct a

formal investigation of the case.

At the hearing, petitioners affirmed the contents of their affidavits

and gave the specific dates during which the sexual harassment took place.
Petitioners categorically narrated the various incidents of sexual
harassment, and they were subjected to extensive cross-examination. On
the other hand, five witnesses testified for the respondent including
himself. In essence, they testified that the sexual harassment could not
have occurred.

On February 17, 1995, the Commission convinced that the

complainants had proven the guilt of the respondent with substantial
evidence, issued a resolution finding respondent guilty of grave misconduct
and meted out the penalty of dismissal from the service with all its
accessory penalties.

After due hearing, on September 22, 1995, the Court of Appeals

promulgated its decision which REVERSED and SET ASIDE the resolutions of
the Civil Service Commission.
Issue:

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the resolutions of

the Civil Service Commission on the ground that the same were not
supported by substantial evidence.

Ruling:

We do not agree. The evidence adduced before the Commission

consists of the positive testimonies of petitioners. On the other hand,
respondent claimed that it was impossible for him to be at the office on the
days that the sexual harassment occurred. In other words, respondent
presented an alibi.

Respondent’s defense is that the complaints were instigated by a

certain Atty. Ola, who was his rival for promotion. The defense alleged that
the three complaining petitioners were all convinced by Atty. Ola to file
charges against respondent Resma so that he would be out of contention
for promotion.

We are not convinced that all three women would prevaricate at the
mere urging of Atty. Ola. Filing a charge for sexual harassment is not a
trivial matter. It entails having to go public with an incident that one is
trying to forget. It means opening oneself to public ridicule and scrutiny.
We, therefore, cannot believe the version of the defense that the charges
were all fabricated.

As to the issue of whether the resolution of the Civil Service

Commission is supported by substantial evidence, we find that, in fact,
preponderant evidence supported its findings.

"In determining where the preponderance or the superior weight of

evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts
and circumstances of the case, the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their
intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts on which
they are testifying, the nature of such facts, the probability or improbability
of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal
credibility as far as the same may legitimately appear at the trial. The Court
may also consider the number of witnesses, although the preponderance is
not necessarily with the greatest number." "By preponderance of
evidence, is meant that the evidence as a whole adduced by one side is
superior to that of the other."
 - end of case -

CAN THE RESPONDENT SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE/S AFTER THE

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION?

Yes, even if he has already submitted his/her comment/s and counter

affidavits during the preliminary investigation.

WHAT WILL BE THE CONTENT OF THE ANSWER OF THE RESPONDENT?

The answer, which must be in writing and under oath, shall be specific and
shall contain material facts and applicable laws, if any, including
documentary evidence/s, sworn statements covering testimonies of
witnesses, if any, in support of respondent's case. It shall also include a
statement indicating whether he/she elects a formal investigation. The
answer must be filed within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt thereof.

WHAT WILL BE THE EFFECT IF RESPONDENT FAILS OR REFUSES TO

ANSWER WITHIN THE 72 HOURS REQUIREMENT?

It shall be considered a waiver of respondent’s right to answer and a formal

investigation may commence.

WHEN CAN PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION BE APPLIED?

Preventive suspension can be applied upon petition of the complainant or

motu propio upon the recommendation of the CODI after the service of the
Formal Charge to the respondent.

The proper disciplining authority may order the preventive suspension

during the formal investigation, if there are reasons to believe that the
person complained of is probably guilty of the charges which would
warrant his/her removal from the service.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION?

An order of preventive suspension may be issued to temporarily remove

the respondent from the scene of his/her malfeasance or misfeasance and
to preclude the possibility of his/her exerting undue influence or pressure
on the witnesses against his/her tampering of documentary evidence on
file with this Office.

HOW LONG IS THE PERIOD OF PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION?

Preventive suspension for an administrative case shall not be more than

ninety (90) days unless otherwise provided by a special law.
WHAT REMEDIES FROM THE PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION CAN BE AVAILED
OF BY THE RESPONDENT?

Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of order, respondent may:

1. file a motion for reconsideration with the disciplining authority; or

2. elevate the same to the Civil Service Commission by way of an

appeal.

WHEN CAN A FORMAL INVESTIGATION BE CONDUCTED? BY WHOM?

If the CODI deems that a formal investigation is necessary to decide the

case judiciously, it shall conduct an investigation not earlier than five (5)
days nor later than ten (10) days from receipt of the respondent’s answer.
It shall be finished within thirty (30) days from the issuance of the formal
charge or the receipt of the answer unless the disciplining authority
extends the period.

WHAT IS THE PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE?

The pre-hearing conference may be conducted by the CODI at the

commencement of the formal investigation to agree on matter/s that
would expedite the hearing.

The hearing proper and the order of presentation of evidence/s is governed

by Sections 26 to 35 of the Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual
Harassment Cases of the CSC.

WHEN IS THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION REPORT SUBMITTED? TO WHOM?

Within fifteen (15) days after the conclusion of the formal investigation, a
report containing a narration of the material facts established during the
investigation, the findings and the evidence supporting said findings, as well
as the recommendations, shall be submitted by the CODI to the disciplining
authority together with the complete records of the case.

Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the investigation report, the
disciplining authority shall render his/her decision on the case.

WHEN IS A DECISION ON A SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE BY THE

DISCIPLINING AUTHORITY FINAL AND EXECUTORY?

The decision of the disciplining authority is final and executory when the
penalty of suspension is not more than thirty (30) days or a fine of not more
than the equivalent of thirty (30) days salary is imposed.
WHEN IS A PENALTY OF SUSPENSION APPEALABLE TO THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION?

A penalty of suspension exceeding thirty (30) days or a fine exceeding the

equivalent of thirty (30) days salary of the respondent shall be appealable
to the omission after the lapse of the reglamentary period for filing a
motion for reconsideration or an appeal and no such pleading has been
filed.

WHAT ARE THE REMEDIES AFTER A DECISION?

1. Motion for reconsideration by the adverse party

2. Appeal to the Civil Service Commission if penalty imposed exceeds

thirty (30) days suspension or fine exceeding the equivalent of thirty
(30) days salary. The appeal may be initially appealed to the
department head (for decisions rendered by the bureau or office
head that are appealable to the CSC)

3. Petition for review with the CSC by a complainant for a decision of

a disciplining authority dismissing a complaint for lack of prima facie
case

4. Petition for review with the Court of Appeals on a decision made

by the CSC

5. Petition for certiorari in the proper court by the aggrieved party

WHEN CAN A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BE FILED BY THE

ADVERSED PARTY?

The party adversely affected by the decision may file a motion for
reconsideration with the disciplining authority who rendered the decision
within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof.

Such is deemed filed on the date stamped on the official copy by the proper
receiving authority, and if sent by mail, on the date shown by the postmark
on the envelope, which shall be attached to the records of the case.

The filing of the motion for reconsideration within the reglamentary period
shall stay the execution of the decision sought to be reconsidered.

WHAT CAN BE THE BASIS FOR A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION?

1. New evidence has been discovered which materially affects the

decision rendered; or
 2. The decision is not supported by the evidence on record; or

3. Errors of law or irregularities have been committed prejudicial to

the interest of the movant.

CAN THERE BE MORE THAN ONE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION?

No, only one motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.

WHEN CAN AN APPEAL FOR DECISIONS OF HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS,

PROVINCES, CITIES, MUNICIPALITIES AND OTHER INSTRUMENTALITIES BE
APPEALED TO THE CSC?

For a decision where the penalty imposed is more than thirty (30) days
suspension or a fine exceeding the equivalent of thirty (30) days salary, it
may be appealed to the CSC within a period of fifteen (15) days from
receipt thereof.

A notice of appeal, including the appeal memorandum, shall be filed with

the appellate authority with a copy furnished to the disciplining office. The
latter shall submit the records of the case, which shall be automatically and
chronologically arranged, paged and securely bound to prevent loss with its
comment within fifteen (15) days, to the appellate authority.

WHEN IS THE APPEAL DEEMED FILED? HOW MUCH IS THE APPEAL FEE?

An appeal sent by mail shall be deemed filed on the date shown by the
postmark on the envelope, which shall be attached to the records of the
case and in case of personal delivery, the date stamped thereon by the
proper office.

The appellant shall pay an appeal fee of three hundred pesos (P300.00) and
a copy of the receipt shall be attached to the appeal.

WHEN IS AN APPEAL PERFECTED?

The appeal is perfected when the appellant shall have submitted within
fifteen (15) days from receipt of the decision the following:

1. Notice of appeal which shall specifically state the date of the

decision appealed from and the date of receipt thereof;

2. Three copies of appeal memorandum containing the grounds

relied upon for the appeal, together with the certified true copy of
the decision, resolution or order appealed from, and certified copies
of the document or evidence;
 3. Proof of service of a copy of the appeal memorandum to the
disciplining office;

4. Proof of payment of the appeal fee; and

5. A statement or certification of non-forum shopping

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ABOVE

REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE REGLAMENTARY PERIOD?

It shall be construed as failure to perfect an appeal and shall cause its

dismissal.

WILL AN APPEAL FILED STOP THE DECISION FROM BEING EXECUTORY?

The appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory.

In case the penalty is suspension or removal, the respondent shall be

considered as having been under preventive suspension during the period
of the appeal, in the event he wins the appeal.

WHAT IS THE CLASSIFICATION OF ACTS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT?

Sexual Harassment is classified as:

1. Grave Offenses

a. unwanted touching of private parts of the body (genitalia,

buttocks, and breast);

b. sexual assault;

c. malicious touching;

d. requesting for sexual favor in exchange for employment,

promotion, local or foreign travels, favorable working
conditions or assignments, a passing grade, the granting of
honors or scholarship, or the grant of benefits or payment of a
stipend or allowance; and

e. other analogous cases.

2. Less Grave Offenses

a. unwanted touching or brushing against a victim’s body;

b. pinching not falling under grave offenses;

 c. derogatory or degrading remarks or innuendoes directed
toward the members of one sex or one’s sexual orientation or
used to describe a person;

d. verbal abuse or threats with sexual overtones; and

e. other analogous cases.

3. Light Offenses

a. surreptitiously looking or stealing a look at a person’s

private part or worn undergarments;

b. telling sexist/smutty jokes or sending these through text,

electronic mail or other similar means, causing embarrassment
or offense and carried out after the offender has been advised
that they are offensive or embarrassing or, even without such
advise, when they are by their nature clearly embarrassing,
offensive or vulgar;

c. malicious leering or ogling;

d. the display of sexually offensive pictures, materials or

graffiti;

e. unwelcome inquiries or comments about a person’s sex life;

f. unwelcome sexual flirtation, advances, propositions;

g. making offensive hand or body gestures at an employee;

h. persistent unwanted attention with sexual overtones;

i. unwelcome phone calls with sexual overtones causing

discomfort, embarrassment, offense or insult to the receiver;
and

j. other analogous cases.

The head of the agency who fails to act on the complaint within fifteen (15)
days from receipt of any complaint for sexual harassment properly filed
against any employee in that office shall be charged with neglect of duty.

Any person found guilty of sexual harassment shall, after the investigation,
be meted the penalty corresponding to the gravity of the offense.

- start of case -
DR. RICO S. JACUTIN, petitioner,

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

G.R. No. 140604 March 6, 2002

Facts:

Juliet Q. Yee, then a 22-year old fresh graduate of nursing, averred

that on 28 November 1995 her father accompanied her to the office of
petitioner at the City Health Office to seek employment. Juliet’s father and
petitioner were childhood friends. 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.

Petitioner then invited her to go bowling. Petitioner told her to meet

him at Borja Street so that people would not see them on board the same
car together. Soon, at the designated place, a white car driven by petitioner
stopped. She got in. Petitioner held her pulse and told her not to be scared.
After dropping by at his house to put on his bowling attire, petitioner got
back to the car.

While driving, petitioner casually asked her if she already took her
bath, and she said she was so in a hurry that she did not find time for it.
Petitioner then inquired whether she had varicose veins, and she said "no."
Petitioner told her to raise her foot and lower her pants so that he might
confirm it. She felt assured that it was all part of the research. Petitioner
still pushed her pants down to her knees and held her thigh. He put his
hands inside her panty until he reached her pubic hair. Surprised, she
exclaimed "hala ka!" and instinctively pulled her pants up. Petitioner then
touched her abdomen with his right hand saying words of endearment and
letting the back of his palm touch her forehead. He told her to raise her
shirt to check whether she had nodes or lumps. She hesitated for a while
but, eventually, raised it up to her navel. Petitioner then fondled her breast.
Shocked at what petitioner did, she lowered her shirt and embraced her
bag to cover herself, telling him angrily that she was through with the
research. He begged her not to tell anybody about what had just happened.
Before she alighted from the car, petitioner urged her to reconsider her
decision to quit. He then handed over to her P300.00 for her expenses.
 Petitioner contradicted the testimony of Juliet Yee. He claimed that
on 28 November 1995 he had a couple of people who went to see him in
his office, among them, Juliet and her father, Pat. Justin Yee, who was a
boyhood friend. When it was their turn to talk to petitioner, Pat. Yee
introduced his daughter Juliet who expressed her wish to join the City
Health Office. Petitioner replied that there was no vacancy in his office,
adding that only the City Mayor really had the power to appoint city
personnel. On 01 December 1995, the afternoon when the alleged incident
happened, he was in a meeting with the Committee on Awards in the Office
of the City Mayor. On 04 December 1995, when Juliet said she went to his
office to return the P300.00, he did not report to the office for he was
scheduled to leave for Davao at 2:35 p.m. to attend a hearing before the
Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao. He submitted in evidence a
photocopy of his plane ticket. He asserted that the complaint for sexual
harassment, as well as all the other cases filed against him by Vivian Yu,
Iryn Salcedo, Mellie Villanueva and Pamela Rodis, were but forms of
political harassment directed at him.

Issues:

"I. Petitioner cannot be convicted of the crime of sexual harassment

in view of the inapplicability of Republic Act No. 7877 to the case at bar.

"II. Petitioner [has been] denied x x x his constitutional right to due

process of law and presumption of innocence on account of the
insufficiency of the prosecution evidence to sustain his conviction."

Ruling:

The above contentions of petitioner are not meritorious. Section 3 of

Republic Act 7877 provides:

Sec. 3. Work, Education or Training-related Sexual Harassment

Defined. Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is
committed by an employer, 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, conditions, promotions, or privileges; or refusal to grant
sexual favor results in limiting, segregating, or classifying the
employee which in a way would discriminate, deprive or diminish
employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said
employee;

Most importantly, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and the
factual findings of the Sandiganbayan must be respected by, if not indeed
conclusive upon, the tribunal, no cogent reasons having been sufficiently
shown to now hold otherwise. The assessment on the credibility of
witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court because of its unique
position of being able to observe that elusive and incommunicable
evidence on the deportment of witnesses at the stand, an opportunity that
is denied the appellate court.

- end of case -

WHAT ARE THE PENALTIES FOR OFFENSES OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT?

1. Grave offenses - Dismissal

2. Less grave offenses

1st offense - Fine or suspension for thirty (30) days but not
exceeding six (6) months

2nd offense - Dismissal

3. Light offenses

1st offense - Reprimand

2nd offense - Fine or suspension not exceeding thirty (30) days

3rd offense - Dismissal

WHAT PENALTY SHALL BE APPLIED IF THE RESPONDENT IS FOUND GUILTY

OF TWO (2) OR MORE CHARGES OR COUNTS?

The penalty to be imposed shall be that corresponding to the most serious

charges or count and the rest shall be considered as aggravating
circumstances.
WHAT ARE THE DUTIES OF THE AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT
ACCORDING TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (CSC) ADMINISTRATIVE
DISCIPLINARY RULES ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASES?

All national and local government agencies, state colleges and universities,
including government-owned or controlled corporations with original
charter, shall promulgate or modify their own rules and regulations in
conformity with these Rules, in consultation with their employees, within
six (6) months from the effectivity of this Resolution.

All agencies of the government shall submit an authenticated copy of their

rules and regulations on sexual harassment to the Commission for approval
within one (1) month from the date of their promulgation. It shall likewise
submit to the Commission a list of the members of their Committee on
Decorum and Investigation immediately after its composition.

All agencies of the government shall develop an education and training

program for their officials and employees and the members of their
Committee on Decorum and Investigation to increase understanding about
sexual harassment, prevent its occurrence, and ensure proper
investigation, prosecution and resolution of sexual harassment cases.

The head of office who, after six (6) months from the affectivity of this
resolution, fails to cause the promulgation or modification of the agency’s
rules and regulations on sexual harassment in conformity with these rules,
shall be charged with neglect of duty.

WHAT SHALL APPLY TO A CASE OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT WHEN THE

AGENCY IS STILL IN THE PROCESS OF PROMULGATING OR MODIFYING ITS
OWN RULES AND REGULATIONS?

During the period when the agency is still in the process of promulgating or
modifying its own rules and regulations on sexual harassment, a complaint
alleging acts constituting sexual harassment shall be administratively
prosecuted, resolved and adjudicated based on these Rules.
On
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE ACT OF 2013 (RA 7875 as amended
by RA 9241 and RA 10606)

Who are covered under the National Health Insurance Program?

 All citizens of the Philippines shall be covered by the National Health

Insurance Program.

The Corporation shall enroll beneficiaries in order for them to avail of benefits
under this Act with the assistance of the financial arrangements provided by
the Corporation under the following categories:

a. Members in the Formal Economy – those with formal

contracts and fixed terms of employment including workers in
the government and private sector, whose premium contribution
payments are equally shared by the employee and the employer.

1. Government Employee - an employee of the government,

whether regular, casual or contractual, who renders services in
any of the government branches, military or police force,
political subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, including
government-owned and-controlled corporations, financial
institutions with original charter, Constitutional Commissions,
and is occupying either an elective or appointive position,
regardless of status of appointment.

2. Private Employee - an employee who renders services in any

of the following:

i. Corporations, partnerships, or single

proprietorships, NGOs, cooperatives, non- profit
organizations, social, civic, or professional or charitable
institutions, organized and based in the Philippines
including those foreign owned;

ii. Foreign governments or international

organizations with quasi-state status based in the
 Philippines which entered into an agreement with the
Corporation to cover their Filipino employees in
PhilHealth;

iii. Foreign business organizations based abroad with

agreement with the Corporation to cover their Filipino
employees in PhilHealth.

3. All other workers rendering services, whether in government

or private offices, such as job order contractors, project-based
contractors, and the like

4. Owners of Micro Entreprises

5. Owners of Small, Medium and Large Enterprises

6. Household Help – as defined in the Republic Act

10361 or “Kasambahay Law”

7. Family Drivers

b. Members in the Informal Economy – this sector would include

but are not limited to the following:

1. Migrant Workers – documented or undocumented Filipinos

who are engaged in a remunerated activity in another country of
which they are not citizens.

2. Informal Sector - to this sector belong, among others,

street hawkers, market vendors, pedicab and tricycle drivers,
small construction workers, and home-based industries and
services.

3. Self-Earning Individuals – individuals who render services

or sell goods as a means of livelihood outside of an employer-
employee relationship or as a career. These include professional
practitioners including but not limited to doctors, lawyers,
engineers, artists, architects and the like, businessmen,
entrepreneurs, actors, actresses and other performers, news
correspondents, professional athletes, coaches, trainers, and
such other individuals.

4. Filipinos With Dual Citizenship – Filipinos who are also

citizens of other countries.

5. Naturalized Filipino Citizens – those who have become

Filipino citizens through naturalization as governed by
Commonwealth Act No. 473 or the Revised Naturalization Law.

6. Citizens of other countries working and/or residing in

the Philippines – foreign citizens with valid working
permits and/or Aliens Certificate of Registrations (ACRs)
working and/or residing in the Philippines.

c. Indigent – a person who has no visible means of

income, or whose income is insufficient for family subsistence,
as identified by the DSWD based on specific criteria set
for this purpose in accordance with the guiding principles set
forth in Article I of the Act.

d. Sponsored Member – a member whose contribution is

being paid by another individual, government agency, or private
entity according to the rules as may be prescribed by the
Corporation.

e. Lifetime Member – a member who has reached the age of

retirement under the law and has paid at least one hundred
twenty (120) monthly premium contributions. Lifetime members
shall include but not limited to the following:

1. Retirees/ Pensioners from the Government

Sector

i. Old-age retirees and pensioners of the GSIS,

including non-uniformed personnel of the AFP,PNP, BJMP
and BFP who have reached the compulsory age of
retirement before June 24, 1997, and retirees under
Presidential Decree 408.
ii. GSIS Disability Pensioners prior to March 4, 1995.

iii. GSIS Retirees who have reached the age of

retirement on or after March 4, 1995 and have at least
120 months PhilHealth premium contributions.

iv. Retirees and Pensioners who are members of the

Judiciary who have reached the age of retirement
and have at least 120 months PhilHealth contributions.

v. Retirees who are members of Constitutional

Commissions and other Constitutional Offices who have
reached the age of retirement and have at least 120
months PhilHealth contributions.

2. Retirees/ Pensioners from the Private Sector

i. SSS Pensioners prior to March 4, 1995.

ii. SSS Permanent Total Disability Pensioners prior to

March 4, 1995.

iii. SSS Death/ Survivorship Pensioners prior to March 4,

1995.

iv. SSS Old-age Retirees who have reached the age of

retirement on or after March 4, 1995 and have at least
120 months PhilHealth premium contributions.

3. Uniformed Members of the AFP, PNP, BJMP and BFP

i. Uniformed personnel of the AFP, PNP, BJMP

and BFP who have reached the compulsory age of
retirement before June 24, 1997, and retirees
under Presidential Decree 408.

ii. Uniformed members of the AFP, PNP, BJMP and

BFP who have reached the compulsory age of
retirement on or after June 24, 1997, being the
 effectivity date of RA 8291 which excluded them in
the compulsory membership of the GSIS and have at
least 120 months PhilHealth premium contributions.

4. Members of PhilHealth who have reached the age of

retirement as provided by law and have met the required
premium contributions of at least 120 months, regardless
of their employer/s’ or sponsor’s arrears in contributions
and is not included in the Sponsored program nor
declared dependent by their spouse or children.

Obligations of the Employer

All government and private employers are required to:

a. Register their employees and their qualified dependents by

submitting a list of their employees complete with their salary base
and other documents as may be required.

b. Report to the Corporation its newly-hired employees within thirty

(30) calendar days from assumption to office.

c. Give notice to the Corporation of an employee’s separation within

thirty (30) calendar days from separation.

d. Keep true and accurate work records for such period and containing
such information as the Corporation may prescribe.

e. Allow the inspection of its premises including its books and other
pertinent records.

What is the basis of Payment of Premium Contributions?

 Contributions of members in the informal economy shall be based

primarily on household earnings and assets.

Are Sponsored Members or Migrant Workers who ceased to have

Formal Employment or to be Covered as Indigent, still required to
pay premium contributions?
  A member separated from formal employment or whose coverage as a
Sponsored member or as an Indigent or as a migrant worker has
ceased should pay the required premium as self-earning individuals to
ensure continuous entitlement to benefits.

Are the enrollees of Citizens of Other Countries Working in the Philippines

qualified to be members of PhilHealth?

 Citizens of other countries working in the Philippines may be allowed

coverage in the Program provided that their countries have existing
reciprocity agreements with the Philippines, subject to additional
guidelines as may be prescribed by the Corporation.

What are the Requisites for entitlement of the benefits?

a. Paid premium contribution for at least three (3) months within the
six (6) months prior to the first day of availment; or,

b. Paid in full the required premium for the calendar year.

In addition, the member is not currently subject to legal penalty of

suspension as provided for in Section 44 of the Act and has paid
the premium with sufficient regularity. The Corporation may issue
other requirements for entitlement to benefits as it deems appropriate.

Who are excluded from the payment of Monthly Contributions to be

entitled to the Programs Benefit?

a. Retirees and pensioners of the SSS and GSIS prior to March 4,

1995; and,

b. Members of PhilHealth who have reached the age of retirement as

provided for by law, not gainfully employed or continuing their
practice as professional and have met the required premium
contributions of at least 120 months.
CASES:

PHILIPPINE HEALTH-CARE PROVIDERS, INC.

Vs.

ESTRADA

G.R. No. 171052 January 28, 2008

Facts:

 Philippine Health-Care Providers, Inc. (Maxicare) formally appointed

Estrada as its General Agent evidenced by a letter-agreement dated
February 16, 1991 granting him a commission equivalent to:
 15 to 18% from individual, family, group accounts
 2.5 to 10% on tailored fit plans
 10% on standard plans of commissionable amount on corporate
accounts
 Maxicare had a "franchising system" in dealing with its agents
whereby an agent had to first secure permission from to list a
prospective company as client
 MERALCO account was included as corporate accounts applied by
Estrada
 Estrada submitted proposals and made representations to the
officers of MERALCO regarding the MAXICARE Plan but MERALCO
directly negotiated with MAXICARE from December 1, 1991 to
November 30, 1992 and was renewed twice for a term of 3 years
each
 March 24, 1992: Estrada through counsel demanded his commission
for the MERALCO account and 9 other accounts but it was denied by
MAXICARE because he was not given a go signal to intervene in the
negotiations for the terms and conditions
 RTC: Maxicare liable for breach of contract and ordered it to pay
Estrada actual damages in the amount equivalent to 10% of
P20,169,335 representing her commission for Meralco
 CA: Affirms in toto

Issue: Whether Estrada should be paid his commission for the Maxicare
Plans subscribed by Meralco.

Ruling:
 YES. Both courts were one in the conclusion that Maxicare
successfully landed the Meralco account for the sale of healthcare plans
only by virtue of Estrada’s involvement and participation in the negotiations

Maxicare’s contention that Estrada may only claim commissions from

membership dues which she has collected and remitted to Maxicare as
expressly provided for in the letter-agreement does not convince us. It is
readily apparent that Maxicare is attempting to evade payment of the
commission which rightfully belongs to Estrada as the broker who brought
the parties together.

The only reason Estrada was not able to participate in the collection
and remittance of premium dues to Maxicare was because she was
prevented from doing so by the acts of Maxicare, its officers, and
employees.

An agent receives a commission upon the successful conclusion of a

sale while a broker earns his pay merely by bringing the buyer and the
seller together, even if no sale is eventually made. "Procuring cause" is used
in describing a broker’s activity. The cause originating a series of events
which, without break in their continuity, result in the accomplishment and
efforts must have been the foundation on which the negotiations resulting
in a sale began.

Even a cursory reading of the Complaint and all the pleadings filed
thereafter before the RTC, CA, and this Court, readily show that Estrada
does not concede, at any point, that her negotiations with Meralco failed -
Counsel's contention is wrong.

Estrada is entitled to 10% of the total amount of premiums paid by

Meralco to Maxicare as of May 1996 (including succeeding renewals).
PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION

Vs.

CHINESE GENERAL HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER

GR No. 163123 April 15, 2015

Facts:

On 1995, RA 7875 (National Health Insurance Act) was enacted,

which Section 2 states:

SEC. 2. Declaration of Principles and Policies. – It is hereby declared the

policy of the State to adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to
health development which shall endeavor to make essential goods, health
and other social services available to all the people at affordable cost and
to provide free medical care to paupers. Towards this end, the State shall
provide comprehensive health care services to all Filipinos through a
socialized health insurance program that will prioritize the health care
needs of the underprivileged, sick, elderly, persons with disabilities
(PWDs), women and children and provide free health care services to
indigents.

PhilHealth then promulgated it rules and regulations implementing

the said act.

Prior to the enactment of RA 7875, Chinese General Hospital (CGH)

has been an accredited health care provider under Philippine Medical Care
Commission (Medicare). CGH then filed its Medicare claims with Medicare
from 1989 to 1992 amounting to P8,102,782.10 and from 1998 to 1999
P7,554,342.93 which, most of such (P14,291,568.71), PhilHealth declined
saying that their claim is already delayed as to the required period of filing
claims (60 days from date of discharge of patient) and may no longer be
paid basing on Sections 51 and 52 of RA 7875 and Section 52 of its
Implementing Rules and Regulations. PhilHealth declared such with finality.

The CA, in a petition for review, ordered PhilHealth to pay the

P14,291,568.71 to CGH saying that the creation of the said law was for the
purpose of providing medical services available to all people at affordable
cost and that there is a liberal application of the 60-day period under RA
7875 IRR. CA said that the policy of the state in creating a national health
insurance program would be better served by granting the claims. CGH
voluntarily provided medical services to its members. The purpose is to
provide immediate medical care with the least amount of cash expended.
Members need only to show their membership card for the health care
givers to provide services, and the health care provider renders service.
Without reimbursement from PhilHealth, such health care givers shoulder
the PhilHealth part of the bill which the law puts in the government
through this program. How can such accredited voluntary health givers be
encouraged to serve hits members when they would end up on the losing
point of the venture? They may at the very least, boycott the program.

Issue:

Whether PhilHealth should pay CGH claims.

Ruling:

Yes. Under the RA 7875 IRR, any claim for payment of services
rendered shall be filed within 60 days from the date of discharge of patient,
otherwise, barred. But before a claim is filed, the health care provider must
first be required to:

a. accomplish a PhilHealth claim form

b. accomplish an itemized list of medicines administered to and medical
supplies used by the patient concerned, indicating therein the
quality, unit, price and total price corresponding thereto
c. require the patient and his/her employer to accomplish and submit a
PhilHealth member/employer certification
d. in case the patient gave birth, require her to submit a certified true
copy of the child’s birth certificate
e. in case the patient died, require the immediate relatives to submit a
certified true copy of the child’s birth certificate
f. in case a members dependent is hospitalized for which the member
seeks coverage, require the member to submit proof of relationship
to the patient and to execute an affidavit of support.

Preparation of these requirements usually take a lot of time,

especially for providers such as CHG that averages up to a thousand
members serviced a month. Under such circumstances, it would be
unreasonable to comply 100% with the 60-day rule. There are factors
beyond CGH’s control. There will always be delay not attributable to the
provider. In fact, it may also be attributable to the members themselves.

The unreasonable strict implementation of the 60-day period would

be counter-productive to the effectiveness of the Act. It is like PhilHealth is
punishing the provider by refusing to pay its claims for services already
rendered. No accredited provider will gamble honoring claims with delayed
supporting papers, knowing that reimbursement would not be
forthcoming.

Also, a careful reading of RA 7875 would show that the law itself
does not provide for any specific period within which to file claims. The
period for filing is not per se the principal concern of the lawmakers. Even
PhilHealth issued Circulars allowing for liberal application of the 60-day
period.

Petition denied.