ChanRobles Virtual law Library
PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
A collection of Philippine laws, statutes and codes not included or cited in the main indices of the Chan Robles Virtual Law Library.
:
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 119 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE ON ROGELIO I.
RAYALA, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC)
This resolves the complaint filed on
November 18, 1998 by Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo, Stenographic Reporter II
of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against Rogelio I.
Rayala, Chairman of the same Office, for sexual harassment under
Republic Act (RA) No. 7877 or the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of
1995.
The acts constitutive of the charge are stated in complainant's
affidavit-complaint, essentially alleging that on November 9, 1998, the
respondent held, squeezed the complainant's shoulders, while taking
dictation, run his fingers on her neck and ear, and made sexually
offensive remarks.
The complaint was filed before the Office of the Secretary of Labor.
Acting thereon, the Secretary of Labor sought guidance from this
Office, the respondent being a presidential appointee. Upon order of
this Office, through the Executive Secretary, to initiate the necessary
investigation on the complaint and to create a committee for the
purpose, the Secretary of Labor issued on December 4, 1998
Administrative Order No. 280, Series of 1998, constituting a Committee
on Decorum and Investigation ("Committee") pursuant to the provisions
of RA No. 7877. The Committee was directed to conduct the hearings as
expeditiously as possible and to submit a Report and Recommendation
after the conclusion of the investigation.
Upon order of the Committee, complainant appeared before it and swore
to the truth of the allegations made in her complaint. On his part,
respondent, instead of submitting his answer as directed, filed a
Counter-Affidavit Ad Cautela, stating his defenses, albeit with a
reservation to question the composition of the Committee.
In an attempt to stop the proceedings of the Committee, respondent
filed before the Office of the Secretary of Labor a petition, assailing
the composition of the Committee for being contrary to law. He also
moved to dismiss the case on ground of forum shopping as complainant
appeared to have filed a similar complaint before the Civil Service
Commission (CSC). The Secretary of Labor, however, denied/dismissed
said petition and motion.
Discontented, respondent elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals
via a Petition (with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order
and Writ of Preliminary Injunction) but failed to obtain a favorable
judgment. After dismissal of his petition, respondent manifested his
intention not to pursue his case, hence, the proceedings before the
Committee proceeded with both parties presenting their evidence to
substantiate their respective stand.
Meanwhile, the complaint before the CSC was dismissed in an Order dated
April 16, 1999, which stated, among other things, that the CSC has no
jurisdiction over the respondent considering that he is a presidential
appointee.
Coming now to the case, the records disclose that the Committee has
gathered the following:
"EVIDENCE
FOR THE COMPLAINANT
Complainant alleges that in the
course of her employment with the respondent, she experienced sexual
harassment detailed in paragraphs 17 and 18 of her affidavit complaint.
She related these incidents to her friends Agnes Magdaet, Maribel
Fajardo-Herrera, the Acting Executive Clerk Perlita B. Velasco and
Acting Director Carolina G. de Leon of the Management and
Administrative Department (MAD).
Complainant emphasizes that, as
the respondent is her immediate superior and the highest official of
the NLRC, he has moral ascendancy, influence and authority over all the
subordinate personnel of the entire Commission.
Complainant points out that
respondent's acts of holding, squeezing her shoulders, running his
fingers on her neck and ear and sexually offensive remarks as well as
other behaviors, caused her to be scared and agitated.
She related these acts to some
NLRC officers and staff as these were, according to her, producing
unbearable and hostile environment. Thereupon, she requested for
transfer of assignment and leave of absence.
Corroborating her on this point,
witnesses Agnes Magdaet, Maribel Fajardo-Herrera, Perlita Velasco and
Carol de Leon testified.
xxx
As to the amount of P3,000.00,
complainant claimed that respondent gave her the money without asking
for it and returning it was her way of saying no without offending her
superior.
Further, complainant claimed
that very personal questions asked of her made her uncomfortable. The
same questions were not asked from other staff who worked under him
allegedly because he knows they have husbands, as in fact all who
testified for the respondents are married.
EVIDENCE FOR THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, on the other hand
disputes complainant's allegation claiming that from the acts
complained of he has not demanded, requested or otherwise required
expressly or impliedly, a sexual favor from the complainant; that he
had no such intention; that it is the complainant attributing sexual
content and maliciousness to the purported acts based on her
perception; that this perception must, according to Carl Roger's
theory, be tested against the perceptions of other persons situated in
the same environment called the "external reality."
To prove that it is only the
complainant who gave malicious color to certain actuations of the
respondent, the latter presented his female staff members among other
witnesses who attested to his familiar treatment, friendliness,
paternalistic attitude toward his employees, like tousling the hair,
and generosity by extending financial assistance. These witnesses
claimed they have never seen any malicious or lascivious intent in the
aforesaid acts.
xxx
As to the matter of inquiring
into complainant's personal circumstances, respondent explains that he
was targeting her for the sensitive position of personal secretary for
which he felt he needed to get to know complainant more.
As regards the offering of a sum
of money to complainant, respondent states that the offer came as a
result of their conversation about her family and studies and that
complainant implied to him that she needed the money for her tuition
fee.
As to the incident on November
9, 1998, respondent denied making any sexual advances, testifying that
he was in angry mood when he was giving dictation to complainant due to
the failure of Region VI to attain its "zero backlog" target."
After carefully evaluating and weighing the evidence submitted by both parties in support of their respective position, the Committee, on March 2, 2000, issued a Report and Recommendation finding respondent guilty of the offense charged, and recommending the imposition of the penalty provided for in RA 7877 in the minimum on the strength of the following premises:
"From
the recitation of facts, the acts complained of, albeit denied by the
respondent, have been sufficiently established. The witnesses were
employees of the NLRC who had everything to lose in case their
testimonies were perjured. Moreover, it had been indicated that one of
the witnesses, Acting Director Carol de Leon had been effectively
removed from her post and re-assigned to another post after her
testimony. Moreover, no less than respondent's witness, Rizza Ocampo,
in her Karagdagang Sinumpaang Salaysay (Exh. 6) declared:
"1.
By what norm must the conduct complained of be measured? The Committee resorted to AO 250, which contains in Annex A thereof Guidelines on Proper Decorum. Using these parameters, the Committee finds that the acts attributed to the respondent were improper. They were unwelcomed by the complainant because they connoted a sexual overtone.
By offering justification for such acts, by way of defense, respondent wants to convey that nothing of the sort as perceived by the complainant have been intended.
At the outset, it must be stressed that RA 7877, otherwise known as the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, is a special law. All forms constitutive therefore of the act are considered mala prohibita. As such, intention is not essential for the commission of the offense. Thus, in the Senate deliberations of the bill, Senator Lina, who was one of the sponsor, clarified:
"The
policy that we want to establish here is employer's hands off. Whether
one is provoked, titillated or there is a stimuli, the employer should
keep his hands to himself. That is the policy that we want to establish
here." (CP-Senate, tsp October 17, 1994)
Likewise, the defense of the
respondent that this is just part of the conspiracy to oust him was
mere speculations and was not pursued. Mere speculations and
probabilities cannot substitute proof required to establish a
conspiracy. Basic is the rule that it must be proved through clear and
convincing evidence and not by mere conjectures.
Lastly, complainant's letter
requesting for transfer, coupled by her applications for leave of
absence, and ultimately filing the instant case evidently show the
hostility around her working environment which is sought to be
prevented by the law." (Emphasis ours).
On March 3, 2000, the Secretary of Labor submitted a copy of said Report and Recommendation to this Office, with clarification that the recommended penalty is suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day only, considering that it is respondent's first offense applying the schedule of penalties stated in Sec. 8 of Administrative Order (AO) No. 250 (Rules and Regulations Implementing RA 7877 in the Department of Labor and Employment).
Upon a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, I concur with the findings of the Committee as to the culpability of the respondent, the same having been established by clear and convincing evidence. However, I disagree with the recommendation that respondent be meted only the penalty of suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day considering the circumstances of the case.
What aggravates respondent's situation is the undeniable circumstance that he took advantage of his position as the superior of the complainant. Respondent occupies the highest position in the NLRC, being its Chairman. As the head of said office, it was incumbent upon respondent to set an example to the others as to how they should conduct themselves in public office, to see to it that his subordinates work efficiently in accordance with Civil Service Rules and Regulations, and to provide them with healthy working atmosphere wherein co-workers treat each other with respect, courtesy and cooperation, so that in the end the public interest will be benefited (City Mayor of Zamboanga vs. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA 785 [1990]).
What is more, public service requires the utmost integrity and strictest discipline (Gano vs. Leonen, 232 SCRA 99 [1994]). Thus, a public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity, and "utmost devotion and dedication to duty" (Sec. 4(g), RA 6713), respect the rights of others and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, and good morals (Sec. 4(c)). No less than the Constitution sanctifies the principle that a public office is a public trust, and enjoins all public officers and employees to serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency (Sec. 1, Article XI, 1987 Constitution).
Given these established standards, I see respondent's acts not just a failure to give due courtesy and respect to his co-employees (subordinates) or to maintain good conduct and behavior but defiance of the basic norms or virtues which a government official must at all times uphold, one that is contrary to law and "public sense of morality." Otherwise stated, respondent — to whom stricter standards must apply being the highest official in the NLRC — had shown an attitude, a frame of mind, a disgraceful conduct, which renders him unfit to remain in the service.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Rogelio I. Rayala, Chairman, National Labor Relations Commission, is found guilty of the grave offense of disgraceful and immoral conduct and is hereby DISMISSED from the service effective upon receipt of this Order.
SO ORDER.
Manila, Philippines, May 8, 2000.
chan robles virtual law library
Back to Main
Since 19.07.98.