P a g e | 1 of 5

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment
NATIOANAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region Arbitration Branch
2/F PPSTA Bldg. No. 4, Banawe, Quezon City

MA. LOURDES T. DOMINGO, complainant,
-versus-
ROGELIO I. RAYALA, respondent.
x---------------------------------------x

COMPLAINANTS MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court respectfully submits this
memorandum:
PREFARATORY STATEMENT

1. This is an administrative disciplinary action on sexual harassment filed by the
above complainant who is a stenographic reporter of the NLRC against the
respondent who is the chairman of the aforesaid office.

THE PARTIES

2. Plaintiff is a Stenographic Reporter III of the NLRC assigned at the NCR branch
and is a resident of Veloso St, Block 4, Lot 10, A&C Subdivision, Quezon City;
3. Respondent is the Office Chairman of the NLRC and is a resident of Florez St.,
Block 3, Lot 4, Banawe, Quezon City;
4. Both parties have the capacity to sue and be sued.

FACTS

5. At the beginning, the respondent casually whispers to the complainant
compliments such as, Lot, gumaganda ka yata. However, these comments
escalated into occasional touches accompanied with pisil-pisil on the
complainants shoulders while she was typing the dictations of the respondent.
6. These actuations by the respondent in several circumstances were carried out
discreetly and thus, made her uneasy and nervous as she had heard that about
the respondents secretaries who had resigned because of the alleged
mahahalay na panghihipo ni Chairman.
7. On the 10
th
of September, 1998, while the complainant was on the 8
th
floor,
she was instructed to go down the 7
th
floor to where their workplace was located
in order to make corrections on a paper that she typed. While she was typing
such corrections, the respondent approached and commanded her to follow him
in his office. Therein, the respondent made remarks and questions towards the
complainant such as, May boyfriend ka na ba?, Pagkatapos ng kurso mo ay
kumuha ka ng law at ako ang bahala sa iyo, hanggan Chairman ako dito., or
Bakit malakaki ang balakang mo. (The complete affidavit of the discussion is
attached hereto in Annex B).
NLRC RAB Case No. 12-345678-90
For: SEXUAL HARASSMENT
P a g e | 2 of 5

8. There was also an instance, on October 29, 1998, where the respondent not
only touched and massaged the complainants shoulders but also traced her neck
using his hands and tickled her ears. This time, the she protested to the
respondent to stop and remove his hands.
9. After the last incident, the respondent filed a leave of absence and asked to be
immediately transferred. Thereafter, she was constrained to file an
administrative disciplinary complaint for work related sexual harassment unto
this court on the basis of RA 7877.
10. The respondent, in his answer, denied the testimonies of the respondent
regarding the aforesaid incidents and branded them as invented and that it was
just a plot of conspiracy to oust him from office.
11. He also contended that such actions even if they were true do not indicate
lascivious desires and thus, would not constitute sexual harassment. Laying down
the case of AQUINO vs. ACOSTA
1
as basis.
12. Furthermore, he avers that for sexual harassment to exist, under RA 7877,
solicitation of a sexual favor is a necessary element which he claims that the
complainant has failed to allege and establish.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not there was a conspiracy to harass and oust the respondent from
office and that the allegations of the complainant and her witnesses were mere
fabrications.
2. Whether or not the acts of the respondent constituted sexual harassment
under applicable laws and jurisprudence.

ARGUMENTS

I.
THERE WAS NO CONPIRACY TO OUST THE RESPONDENT FROM SERVICE AND THE
STATEMENTS OF THE COMPLAINANT WERE TRUTHFUL.

The respondent has not proven any ill motive on the part of the
complainant. Such predicament is belied on the fact that the complainant as well
as her witnesses, who were all employees of the NLRC, stood to lose their jobs or
suffer unpleasant consequences for coming forward and charging the
respondent, who is their boss, with sexual harassment. The bare allegations of
the respondent regarding conspiracy is without merit as held in the case of
Magsuci vs. Sandiganbayan, to wit:

Conspiracy is not presumed. Like the physical acts constituting the crime
itself, the elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable
doubt. While conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence, for it
may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the
commission of the crime, all taken together, however, the evidence thereof

1
A.M. No. CTA-01-1, April 2, 2002, ATTY. SUSAN M. AQUINO vs. HON. ERNESTO D. ACOSTA.
P a g e | 3 of 5

must reasonably be strong enough to show a community of criminal
design.
2


II.
THE ACTS IMPUTED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT CONSTITUTE SEXUAL
HARASSMENT

The respondents reliance on the case of Aquino vs. Acosta
3
is misplaced
because the factual setting is different from the case at bar. In the former case,
the casual gestures of Judge Acosta were done during festive or special occasions
and in the presence of other people, while in this case, respondents acts of
holding and squeezing the complainants shoulders, running his fingers across her
neck and tickling her ear, and the inappropriate comments, were all made in the
confines of his office when no other members of his staff were around. In
addition, there produced a hostile work environment for Domingo, as shown by
her filing for a leave of absence and requesting transfer to another unit.
The law penalizing sexual harassment in our jurisdiction is RA 7877.
Section 3 thereof defines work-related sexual harassment in this wise:
Sec. 3. Work, Education or Training-related Sexual Harassment Defined.
Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is committed by an
employer, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor,
professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having authority,
influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or
education environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any
sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or
requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said Act.
(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is
committed when:
(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the
employment, re-employment or continued employment of said individual,
or in granting said individual favorable compensation, terms, conditions,
promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in
limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in a way would
discriminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect said employee;
(2) The above acts would impair the employees rights or privileges under
existing labor laws; or
(3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive
environment for the employee.
The complainant submits that it is true that these provisions require a
demand for sexual favor. However, it is not necessary that such demand be
expressed in an oral or written statement. It may be discerned, with equal
certitude, from the acts of the offender. The holding and squeezing of Domingos
shoulders, running his fingers across her neck and tickling her ear, having
inappropriate conversations with her, giving her money allegedly for school
expenses with a promise of future privileges, and making statements with

2
G.R. No. 101545, January 3, 1995, HERMENEGILDO M. MAGSUCI vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.
3
Supra note 1.
P a g e | 4 of 5

unmistakable sexual overtones ascribes with clarity of the unspoken request for a
sexual favor.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, complainant prays that the
respondent be pronounced guilty of work related sexual harassment and be
disciplined accordingly.
Quezon City, November 20, 1998.

Atty. Maccabeo C. Josol
Counsel for the Petitioner
Block 4, A&C Subdivision, Quezon City
PTR No. 1234/01-05-99, Quezon City
IBP OR No. 1234/01-05-99, Quezon City
Roll No. 1234
MCLE Compliance No. 1234/12-10-08

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

MA. LOURDES T. DOMINGO subscribing under oath, hereby deposes and
states that: She is a petitioner in this case. She has read the foregoing petition,
and the allegations contained therein are true and correct of based on her own
knowledge. She attests to the authenticity of the annexes thereof.

Petitioner has not commenced any other action or proceeding involving
the same issues in another court, tribunal or other quasi-judicial agency; No such
action or proceeding is pending therein. If petitioner should learn that a similar
action or proceeding has been filed or is pending she hereby undertakes to notify
this Honorable Court within 5 days therefrom.

MA. LOURDES T. DOMINGO
Petitioner

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 27th day of January 2000 in
the City of Manila, affiant exhibiting to me her Community Tax Certificate No.
12345678 issued on January 3, 2000 in the City of Manila.


MARIA A. SANTOS
Notary Public
My Commission Expires Dec. 31, 1999
IBP No. 4321 /1-16-1999, Pasig City
PTR No. 4321/ 1-2-1999, Pasig City

Doc. No. ____
Page No. ____
Book No. ____
Series of 1998

P a g e | 5 of 5

Copy Furnished:
By registered mail
Postal Reg. Return Reciet No. _______ Date ________

Perez & Matias Law Offices
Dapitan St., Quezon City
(addressed to the Counsel of the adverse party)

EXPLANATION