Facts:
The parties to this
case are employees of the Municipality of Diadi, Nueva Vizcaya (the LGU).
Petitioner Teresita G. Narvasa is a senior bookkeeper while respondent Benjamin
A. Sanchez, Jr. is the municipal assessor.
The instant 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.
In her
affidavit-complaint, De la Cruz claimed that, sometime in February 2000,
Sanchez handed her a note saying, "Gay, I like you." Offended by
respondent’s inappropriate remark, de la 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. However, this first
incident was followed by a message sent to De la Cruz sometime in March 2002 in
which he said, "Ka date ko si Mary Gay… ang tamis ng halik mo."
On
the other hand, Gayaton narrated that, on 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.
A few days later,
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.
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) "Don’t tell to (sic) 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."
Finally, as far as
petitioner’s complaint was concerned, she asserted that, 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, 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.1avvph
Based on the
investigation conducted by the LGU’s Committee on Decorum and Investigation
(CODI), respondent was found guilty of all three charges by Municipal Mayor
Marvic S. Padilla. On appeal, the CSC dismissed the appeal but modified Mayor
Padilla’s order by holding respondent guilty of grave misconduct instead of
grave sexual harassment. 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 comes to
this Court to appeal the downgrading of respondent’s offense to simple
misconduct.
Issue:
Whether or not the
Sanchez is guilty of grave misconduct.
Held:
Yes.
Respondent’s acts of grabbing petitioner and attempting to kiss her were, no
doubt, intentional. Worse, the incident occurred months after he had made
similar but subtler overtures to De la Cruz, who made it clear that his sexual
advances were not welcome. Considering that the acts respondent committed
against petitioner were much more aggressive, it was impossible that the
offensive nature of his actions could have escaped him. It does not appear that
petitioner and respondent were carrying on an amorous relationship that might
have justified his attempt to kiss petitioner while they were separated from
their companions. Worse, as petitioner and respondent were both married (to
other persons), respondent not only took his marital status lightly, he also
ignored petitioner’s married state, and good character and reputation.
We disagree 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. His act of grabbing
petitioner and attempting to kiss her without her consent was an unmistakable
manifestation of his 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 petitioner’s honor and
dignity.
The CA, however,
interpreted respondent’s repeated apologies to petitioner as an indication of
the absence of intention on his part to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed. On the contrary, such persistent attempts to make peace with
petitioner indicated how well respondent was aware of the gravity of the
transgression he had committed. Respondent certainly knew of the heavy penalty
that awaited him if petitioner complained of his aggressive behavior, as she,
in fact, did.
Furthermore, we 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment