Gonzales v. Serrano (2008)

Gonzales v. Serrano, G.R. No. 175433, March 11, 2015, Per Peralta, J.:

• This case arose from an administrative complaint filed by Atty. Maila Clemen F. Serrano (respondent) against her direct superior, Atty. Jacinto C. Gonzales (petitioner), Chief, Legal Division of the Philippine Racing Commission (PHILRACOM), for grave misconduct, sexual harassment and acts of lasciviousness.

• In her Complaint-Affidavit5 dated January 12, 2001, respondent alleged that on November 23, 2000, petitioner invited her, along with her officemates, Administrative Officer V Eva Bataller, Atty. III Eugene Juanson, and Stenographer II Roman Vidal, to eat lunch at Buddy’s Restaurant, at J.P. Rizal St., Makati City. While seated at the table waiting for their food to be served, petitioner suddenly took hold of respondent’s face and forcefully kissed her lips in the presence of Eva, Eugene, Roman and other customers. Respondent tried to ward off petitioner by pulling her head away from him, but he persisted on kissing her against her will. She was so shocked, terrified, and humiliated that she could hardly talk and move. She wanted to cry, but held her tears for fear of further embarrassment. After releasing her, petitioner said: “Ang sarap pala ng labi ni Maila…” Then, he held her hand and said “Maila sige na…” But, she took away her hand from him. Thereafter, she immediately reported the incident to PHILRACOM Executive Director Juan Lozano.

• Respondent also alleged that prior to that “kissing” incident, petitioner had already degraded her person on four (4) separate occasions, namely: (1) on the very first day she met him in the office, he offered to purchase her a cell phone so that he can text her, which offer she straightforwardly refused; (2) on that same day, he wanted her to join him in his car in going home, which she likewise refused; (3) a week later, he asked her to eat out for lunch; again, she refused; and (4) on August 23, 2000, after her sick leave from office, petitioner called her in his office and scolded her and uttered the following unsavory remarks:

Eh ayoko na sa iyo. Hindi mo sinabi sa akin na may anak ka! Nasaan na ang tatay ng anak mo? Wala na? Ano pang hindi mo sinasabi sa akin, may boyfriend ka? Akala ko pa naman ok ka, kaya nga sinabihan kita dati na sumabay ka sa akin! Ang daming nagrereklamo sa iyo dito. Hindi ka marunong makisama. Makisama ka naman! Paano na kung alisin ka dito, makakabalik ka pa ba sa dati mong opisina? Eh ayoko talaga sa iyo dito. Ano? Do you have a choice? Alam mo ba na ako ang nagrekomenda kay Eva diyan sa Admin. kay Chairman. Kaya ka nakapasok dito dahil pakiusap ka lang [ni] Eva sa akin. Alam mo bang nakasalalay dito and posisyon mo dito? Alam mo bang kung ano mo ako dito? Ha? Ano mo ako dito? xxx Ano ngayon ang gagawin natin eh ayoko nga sa iyo? Anong gagawin natin ngayon?

• Respondent further alleged that she was constrained to elevate her complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman because the PHILRACOM Grievance Committee had not taken any concrete action on her administrative case which had been pending for over a month, and also because of petitioner’s relatively high position in the office.

• To support her complaint-affidavit and to corroborate her account, respondent submitted the Joint Affidavit of her officemates Eva, Eugene and Roman, who witnessed the entire “kissing” incident on November 23, 2000.

• In his Counter-Affidavit/Answer dated March 22, 2001, petitioner alleged that at the prodding of his staff, he agreed to treat them for lunch, as it was respondent’s birthday, and she had no money for a “blowout”. While their group were talking in the restaurant, he greeted respondent and planted an innocent birthday greeting kiss on her left cheek, near her lips. He also alleged that he first met respondent when she applied for Attorney III; that on July 1, 2000, he summoned her to explain the complaints forwarded by the Personnel and Administrative Division as to her frequent absence and tardiness; and that his act of reviewing her official functions was in accordance with his duties and responsibilities as a legal counsel of PHILRACOM.

• In her Reply-Affidavit, respondent stated that she never solicited any favor from petitioner, let alone obliged him to spend money for her birthday “blowout”; that his birthday lunch treat was part of a premeditated evil plan to have her submit to his sexual desire; that she never allowed him to kiss her on the cheek, much less on the lips; that in the course of her employment with petitioner as her supervisor, he had often made sexual advances and gestures towards her, but she still tried to keep their relationship on a strictly professional level; that the alleged work-related incidents of tardiness, inefficiency and laziness were all intended to harass her; and that because of the administrative case she filed against him, she lost her job.

[SC RESOLUTION]

• In Office of the Ombudsman v. Amalio A. Mallari, the Court explained the difference between simple and grave misconduct, as follows:

Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. The misconduct is considered as grave if it involves additional elements such as corruption or willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be proven by substantial evidence; otherwise, the misconduct is only simple. Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others. In other words, in grave misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be evident.

• In this case, the Court finds the element of corruption present. As correctly pointed out by the CA, petitioner used his position and authority as Head of the Legal Division of PHILRACOM, as well as his moral ascendancy, to elicit sexual favors and to indulge in sexually malicious acts from his respondent, his female subordinate. As to petitioner’s sole defense that he merely gave respondent an innocent birthday greeting kiss, the Court is unconvinced in view of the Joint Affidavit of their officemates attesting that he forcibly kissed her on the lips and said: “Ang sarap pala ng labi ni Maila. x x x”

• In Narvasa v. Sanchez, Jr., the Court found the respondent public officer, who merely attempted to forcibly kiss the complainant, guilty of grave misconduct through sexual harassment, thus:

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 [complainant] 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.

• [P]etitioner should be held liable for grave misconduct, but holds that a reduction of the penalty from dismissal from service to a mere suspension of six (6) months without pay, is in order.