CASE DIGEST ON SEXUAL

HARASSMENT
Title of the Case: Narvasa vs. Sanchez, Jr.
G.R. No. 169449 : March 26, 2010

Parties to the Case:

Teresita G. Narvasa is a senior bookkeeper.
(Petitioner complainant in the original case filed
before the administrative agency)
Benjamin A. Sanchez, Jr. is the municipal assessor.
(Respondent Defendant in the original case filed
before the administrative agency)

NOTE: All employees involved in the instant case are

employees of the Municipality of Diadi, Nueva Vizcaya
(hereafter referred to as the LGU).
 THE FACTS
The Acts of Sexual Harassment

1. There were three separate cases filed for Sexual
Harassment against SANCHEZ, Jr. ,by the following
complainants:
a. Teresita G. NArvasa, herein Petitioner,
b. Mary Gay P. de la Cruz and
c. Zenaida M. Gayaton
2. The incidents of sexual harassment as per
complainant De la Cruz:
a. Feb 2000 Sanchez, Jr. handed her a note saying, Gay, I
like you. Offended by the remark, Dela Cruz admonished
him for giving her such a note and told him that she would
give the note to his wife. Respondent then grabbed the note
from her and tore it into pieces.
b. March 2002 in which he said, Ka date ko si Mary Gay ang
tamis ng halik mo.
 THE FACTS
The Acts of Sexual Harassment
3. The incidents of sexual harassment as per
complainant Gayaton:
a. April 5, 2002, respondent whispered to her
during a retirement
program, Oy flawless, pumanaw ka met ditan,
while twice pinching her upper left arm near the
shoulder in a slow manner.
b. A few days later, she received a text
message which said, Pauwi ka na ba sexy?
Such message was later verified through
respondents clerk, Alona Agas, that indeed,
the sender of the message was respondent
Sanchez, Jr.
 THE FACTS
The Acts of Sexual Harassment
3. The incidents of sexual harassment as per
complainant Gayaton:
c. On or about April 22 to 25, 2002, Gayaton
received several messages from respondent
stating:
(1) I like you;
(2) Have a date with me;
(3)Dont tell to (sic) others that I told that I
like you because nakakahiya;
(4) Puso mo to pag bigay mo to sakin, I
would be very happy; and
(5) I slept and dreamt nice things about
you.
 THE FACTS
The Acts of Sexual Harassment
4. The incidents of sexual harassment as per
complainant Narvasa:
a. On November 18, 2000, during a field trip
of officers and members of the St. Joseph
Multi-Purpose Cooperative to the Grotto
Vista Resort in Bulacan, Sanchez, Jr. pulled
her towards him and attempted to kiss her.
Narvasa resisted and was able to escape
the clutches of respondent to rejoin the
group that they were travelling with.
Sanchez, Jr. apologized to petitioner thrice
regarding that incident.
 THE FINDINGS AND PENALTIES
The Investigating body: LGUs Committee on Decorum
and Investigation (CODI). Respondent was found guilty
of all three charges by Municipal Mayor Marvic S.
Padilla.

The Penalty:
In as far as the offenses committed against Gayaton
and Dela Cruz, Sanchez, Jr. was meted the following
penalties:

1. Reprimand for his first offense of light harassment

2. 30 days suspension for his first offense of less grave
sexual harassment.
 THE FINDINGS AND PENALTIES
However, for the grave sexual harassment
committed against petitioner Narvasa, respondent was
meted the penalty of:

1. Dismissal from the government service.

The Civil Service Commission (CSC) (appeal by

respondent): The Municipal Mayors decision was
modified in that the CSC ordered the dismissal of the
appeal and said that the offense committed was
grave misconduct (instead of less grave sexual
harassment) but imposed the same penalty of
dismissal from government service.
 THE FINDINGS AND PENALTIES
The Appeal to the Court of Appeals (appeal by
respondent): 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.

The ISSUE: Whether or not the acts committed by

Sanchez, Jr. constituted sexual harassment which is
punishable under RA 7877, the Anti-Sexual Harassment
Act of 1995.
 THE FINDINGS AND PENALTIES
The RESOLUTION (Supreme Court):
The answer is in the affirmative. The act of grabbing
petitioner and attempting to kiss her without her
consent was an unmistakable manifestation of
respondents intention to violate laws that specifically
prohibited sexual harassment in the work environment.
Assuming arguendo that respondent never intended to
violate RA 7877, his attempt to kiss petitioner was a
flagrant disregard of a customary rule that had existed
since time immemorial that intimate physical contact
between individuals must be consensual.
Respondents defiance of custom and lack of respect
for the opposite sex were more appalling because he
was a married man. Respondents act showed a low
regard for women and disrespect for petitioners honor
and dignity.
 THE FINDINGS AND PENALTIES
The RESOLUTION (Supreme Court):
Furthermore, we (the Supreme Court) note that this is
the third time that respondent is being penalized for
acts of sexual harassment. We are also alarmed by the
increasing boldness in the way respondent displayed
his unwelcome affection for the women of his fancy.
He is a perverted predator preying on his female
colleagues and subordinates. Respondents continued
misbehavior cannot, therefore, be allowed to go
unchecked.