Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
On May 8, 2000, the OP issued AO 119, disagreeing with the FORMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
recommendation that respondent be meted only the penalty of
suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day considering the
Section 1. Forms of Sexual Harassment. – Sexual
circumstances of the case because of the nature of the position of
harassment may be committed in any of the following forms:
Reyala as occupying the highest position in the NLRC, being its
Chairman. Long digest by Ernani Tadili.It was ordered that Rayala be
dismissed from service for being found guilty of grave offense of a) Overt sexual advances;
disgraceful and immoral conduct. b) Unwelcome or improper gestures of affection;
c) Request or demand for sexual favors including but not
limited to going out on dates, outings or the like for the same
Rayala filed Motions for Reconsideration until the case was finally
purpose;
referred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action. The CA found
d) Any other act or conduct of a sexual nature or for
Reyala guilty and imposed the penalty of suspension of service for the
purposes of sexual gratification which is generally annoying,
maximum period of one (1) year.
disgusting or offensive to the victim.27
G.R. No. 155840 – Rayala Petition The Republic argues that Rayala’s acts constitute sexual harassment
under AO 250. His acts constitute unwelcome or improper gestures of
affection and are acts or conduct of a sexual nature, which are
In his petition, Rayala raises the following issues: generally annoying or offensive to the victim.31
1. He’s act does not constitute sexual harassment; It also contends that there is no legal basis for the CA’s reduction of
the penalty imposed by the OP. Rayala’s dismissal is valid and
a. demand, request, or requirement of a sexual favor; warranted under the circumstances. The power to remove the NLRC
Chairman solely rests upon the President, limited only by the
requirements under the law and the due process clause.
b. the same is made a pre-condition to hiring, re-
employment, or continued employment; or
The Republic further claims that, although AO 250 provides only a one
(1) year suspension, it will not prevent the OP from validly imposing the
c. the denial thereof results in discrimination against penalty of dismissal on Rayala. It argues that even though Rayala is a
the employee. presidential appointee, he is still subject to the Civil Service Law.
Under the Civil Service Law, disgraceful and immoral conduct, the acts
2. Intent is an element of sexual harassment; and imputed to Rayala, constitute grave misconduct punishable by
dismissal from the service.32 The Republic adds that Rayala’s position
is invested with public trust and his acts violated that trust; thus, he
3. Misapplication of the expanded definition of sexual should be dismissed from the service.
harassment in RA 7877 by applying DOLE AO 250.
On the other point raised, this Court has held that, even in criminal
cases, the designation of the offense is not controlling. What is
controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the designation of the
offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated,
these being mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the
description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein
recited.
Rayala attacks the penalty imposed by the OP. He alleges that under
the pertinent Civil Service Rules, disgraceful and immoral conduct is
punishable by suspension for a period of six (6) months and one (1)
day to one (1) year. He also argues that since he is charged
administratively, aggravating or mitigating circumstances cannot be
appreciated for purposes of imposing the penalty.
Under AO 250, the penalty for the first offense is suspension for six (6)
months and one (1) day to one (1) year, while the penalty for the
second offense is dismissal.52 On the other hand, Section 22(o), Rule
XVI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the Administrative
Code of 198753 and Section 52 A(15) of the Revised Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service54 both provide that the first
offense of disgraceful and immoral conduct is punishable by