Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Rayala
G.R. No. 155831
February 18, 2008
FACTS:
Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo, then Stenographic Reporter III at the NLRC, filed a Complaint for sexual
harassment against Rayala before Secretary Bienvenido Laguesma of DOLE. The complaint contains the following
allegations :
Holding and squeezing Domingos 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 sexua lover tones all these acts
of Rayala resound with deafening clarity the unspoken request for a sexual favor.
Upon receipt of the Complaint, DOLE Secretary referred it to the OP, Rayala being a presidential appointee.
The OP,through then Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora, ordered Secretary Laguesma to investigate the allegations
in the Complaint and create a committee for such purpose.
On December 4, 1998, Secretary Laguesma issued Admin. Order. No. 280, Series of 1998, constituting a
Committee on Decorum and Investigation (Committee) in accordance with Republic Act (RA) 7877, the Anti-Sexual
Harassment Act of 1995. The Committee heard the parties and received their respective evidence.
On March 2, 2000, the Committee submitted its report and recommendation to Secretary Laguesma. It found
Rayala guilty of the offense charged and recommended the imposition of the minimum penalty provided under AO 250,
which it erroneously stated as suspension for six (6) months (the correct penalty is 6months and 1 day).Executive
Secretary Zamora, issued AO 119, which dismissed Rayala from service effective upon receipt of the Order. Rayala
filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the OP denied in a Resolution. Under Rule 65, Filed a Petition for Certiorari
and Prohibition with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order. However, it was dismissed for disregarding
the hierarchy of courts. Motion for reconsideration was filed and the case was referred to CA for appropriate action.
CA: Sufficient evidence on record to create moral certainty that Rayala committed the acts he was charged
with.Dismissed for disgraceful and immoral conduct in violation of RA 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for PublicOfficials and Employees.Rayala timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration. CA modified its ruling
in a special division of 5, the penalty of dismissal is DELETED and instead the penalty of suspension from service for
the maximum period of one (1) year is HEREBY IMPOSED upon the petitioner. The rest of the challenged decision
stands.Domingo filed a Petition for Review, but was denied for having a defective verification. MR granted, petition
reinstated. Rayala likewise filed a Petition for Review arguing that he is not guilty of any act of sexual harassment.
Meanwhile, the Republic filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the CA, but was denied.
ISSUES:
W/N Rayala commits sexual harassment.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
Rayala asserts that Domingo has failed to allege and establish any sexual favour, demand or request from
petitioner in exchange for her continued employment or for her promotion. According to Rayala, the acts imputed to
him are without malice or ulterior motive. It was merely Domingos perception of malice and a product of hew own
imagination.
RULING:
YES. Factual findings are conclusive on the SC. And quite significantly, Rayala himself admits to having
committed some of the acts imputed to him.It is noteworthy that the five CA Justices who deliberated on the case were
unanimous in upholding the findings of the Committee and the OP. They found the assessment made by the Committee
and the OP to be a meticulous and dispassionate analysis of the testimonies of the complainant (Domingo), the
respondent (Rayala), and their respective witnesses. They differed only on the appropriate imposable penalty.That
Rayala committed the acts complained of and was guilty of sexual harassment is, therefore, the common factual finding
of not just one, but three independent bodies: the Committee, the OP and the CA. It should be remembered that when
supported by substantial evidence, factual findings made by quasi-judicial and administrative bodies are accorded great
respect and even finality by the courts. The principle, therefore, dictates that such findings should bind us.
Likewise, contrary to Rayalas claim, it is not essential that the demand, request or requirement be made as a
condition for continued employment or for promotion to a higher position. It is enough that the respondents act result
in creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the employee.
So, he provoked her, harassed her, and finally dislodged her; and for finally venting her pent-up anger for years, he
found the perfect reason to terminate her.
Sexual harassment is an imposition of misplaced superiority which is enough to dampen an employees spirit
in her capacity for advancement. It affects her sense of judgment. It changes her life, if for this alone private respondent
should be adequately compensated.