The Supreme Court decides a Cebu sexual harassment case

by Atty. Josephus B. Jimenez (The Freeman), 28 May 2021

In the case of LEVI (disguised to protect the name of the company) versus Ms. M (hidden to respect the honor and dignity of the woman), GR 217101, the Supreme Court decided on February 12, 2020, against the company and in favor of the victim of sexual harassment and declared: “An employee is considered constructively dismissed if he or she was sexually harassed by her superior and her employer failed to act on his or her complaint with prompt and sensitivity”. This is a major victory for workers who are sexually abused by their superiors at the workplace.

To our mind, as a Law professor and lecturer in Bar reviews, this is a very important case because the author of the decision is the chairman of this year’s Bar exams, Justice Mario Victor F. Leonen. Ms. M. was assigned in the company’s branch in Danao and her superior, the officer-in-charge of the branch, made her uncomfortable by his inordinate attention and some physical touching, including kissing her and pulling the strap of her bra. The boss jokingly proposed to make a baby with her. On May 1, 2010, the boss suddenly held her hips and attempted to kiss her lips. Ms. M shielded herself, but at the second time, the boss succeeded in kissing her lips. The next day, she was instructed by the boss to report early, and even with her fears and anxieties, she still went to work. She reported to higher management the said incidents. But management did not act with a sense of urgency. It was only on September 27, that the boss was slapped with a mere suspension.

Ms. M felt that the way her case was acted on was tantamount to constructive dismissal. She filed a case against the company and the labor arbiter on January 29, 2011, decided in her favor. She was awarded backwages, separation pay, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees in the total amount of P355,000.00. The NLRC, on May 31, 2012, affirmed the ruling but reduced the award of moral damages from 200,000 to only 50,000. The Court of Appeals based in Cebu also affirmed the NLRC ruling on March 13, 2014. On February 12, 2020, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision and held the boss solidarily liable for any other damages arising from his acts of sexual harassment against Ms. M. Justice Leonen made an extended discourse on the law against sexual harassment and thus this case is a very strong candidate for a Bar question come November 7, 2021.

The Supreme Court faulted management for its lack of a sense of care and urgency given the very difficult and sad predicament of Ms. M which was immediately reported to the company. The acts were committed in May but management’s action happened only in September. That inaction was tantamount to constructive dismissal because the acts of the boss had made Ms. M’s continued employment impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely, and made her working environment harsh, hostile, and unfavorable which pushed Ms. M to leave her job. Her resignation was not voluntary because she was subjected to the insurmountable pressures brought about by the acts inflicted by the sexual harasser. Under Section 5 of the law, the company becomes solidarily liable with the harasser if no immediate action is taken by management. Worse, management allowed the harasser to report for work while the investigation was not yet completed by management.

The Supreme Court sternly declared: “Indifference to complaints of sexual harassment victims may no longer be tolerated. Recent social movements have raised awareness on the continued prevalence of SH cases, especially in the workplace, and has revealed that one of the causes of its pervasiveness is the lack of concern, empathy and responsiveness to the situation. Many times, victims are blamed, hushed and compelled to accept that it is just the way things are and that they should either leave or move on.” I call on all my clients to be guided accordingly.