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 Harassment3. 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 respondent’s clerk, Alona Agas, that indeed, the sender of the message was respondent Sanchez, Jr.

THE FACTS

• The Acts of Sexual Harassment3. 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 Harassment4. 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 harassment2. 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 Mayor’s 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 respondent’s 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. Respondent’s defiance of custom and lack of respect for the opposite sex were more appalling because he was a married man. Respondent’s 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. Respondent’s continued misbehavior cannot, therefore, be allowed to go unchecked.