Toliongco v. CA (2020)

Toliongco v. CA, G.R. No. 231748, July 08, 2020, Per Leonen, J.:

• On October 30, 2013, respondent Anglo-Eastern Crew Management Philippines (Anglo-Eastern Crew), Inc. employed Toliongco as a Messman on behalf of its foreign principal, Anglo Eastern (ANTWERP), NV.

• On February 23, 2014, Toliongco was deployed aboard the vessel M/V Mineral Water.

• On the night of June 27, 2014, Toliongco claimed he was cleaning the galley of the ship when he felt the urge to relieve himself. He was on his way to the water closet when he met Chief Officer Korolenko Oleksiy (CO Oleksiy). Toliongco asked CO Oleksiy “if he wanted his dinner served right away,” to which CO Oleksiy replied “Ok, Ok, Thank you.”

• Toliongco served dinner to CO Oleksiy and continued to clean the galley. When he returned, Toliongco noticed that CO Oleskiy had not eaten his fruits. Toliongco handed CO Oleksiy the uneaten fruits but he was instructed to follow CO Oleksiy to his room. When both of them had entered the room, CO Oleksiy “removed all of his clothes and lay on his bed.” Toliongco was about to leave but CO Oleksiy called out to him, and as Toliongco approached, “the CO suddenly grabbed his left arm.”

• According to Toliongco, CO Oleksiy “demanded that [Toliongco] masturbate and suck his manhood.” He claimed CO Oleksiy “repeatedly forced [Toliongco’s] hand unto [CO Oleksiy’s] penis.”1However, Toliongco resisted and left CO Oleksiy’s room.

• Toliongco then went to the smoking room where he saw Able Seaman Desiderio Paner (Paner). He told Paner what happened and requested that Paner accompany him while cleaning the galley.

• Toliongco was about to finish cleaning the galley when Paner told him that CO Oleksiy was waiting for him in the ship’s office. Toliongco “asked Paner to accompany him”17 but the latter suggested that he should “just run or shout if the situation became precarious.” Paner also promised “to follow [Toliongco] if he did not come back soon.”

• Toliongco “was made to enter the cabin first.” Upon entering, he averred that CO Oleksiy locked the door, grabbed and embraced him, then dragged him to the bed. Toliongco resisted and managed to escape. After this, he told Paner as well as Chief Cook Edenjarlou Eseo (Eseo) what happened “and requested permission to call his parents.”

• The following day, Toliongco filed a Complaint for “Physical Abuse and Sexual Abuse under Alcohol Intake” against Oleksiy before the Captain. Paner and Eseo corroborated the complaint through their written testimonies. All these incidents were entered in the Deck Log Book.

• Toliongco claimed that when CO Oleksiy learned about the complaint, he threatened to kill him. Out of fear, Toliongco requested for a reliever. On July 12, 2014, he was repatriated to the Philippines.

[SC RESOLUTION]

• There is no doubt that sexual harassment occurred on board the M/V Mineral Water, and that petitioner was a victim of it.

• [I]t is possible that the seafarer’s fear is heightened because there is no way to escape from the environment where sexual harassment occurred. Being out at sea, the seafarer has to wait for the ship to dock at the nearest port before the seafarer can disembark and be repatriated. Thus, from the time the incident of sexual harassment occurred until the time the seafarer is able to disembark, it is probable that the seafarer is cowered by fear. In addition, the sexual predator, knowing there is no room for the victim to escape, is capable of continuously committing such acts of sexual harassment. The unique condition of working on board a ship empowers the harassment. The unique condition of working on board a ship empowers the sexual predator and leaves the victim feeling helpless because they are in the same enclosed space.