Alegria v. Duque (A.M. No. RTJ-06-2019. April 3, 2007.

)
Facts: Jul. 27, 2005, Sharon Sanson-Alegria (then Clerk III, Las Pinas RTC) filed with the Office of
the Clerk of Court, Las Pinas RTC, an Affidavit-Complaint charging Judge Manuel Duque for
"commit[ting] acts insulting to and belittling [her] morals and decency." The Committee on
Decorum and Investigation (Committee) took cognizance of the case and docketed it.
Alegria filed an Urgent Motion to order Duques preventive suspension and his inhibition from the
criminal cases being handled by her counsel and tried by him. The Committee issued an Order
directing the parties to submit their respective position papers with the affidavits of their
witnesses. Before the Committee could take action, it forwarded the records to the OCA pursuant
to A.M. No. 05-12-757-RTC excluding "complaints for sexual harassment against Judges of
Regular and Special Courts and Justices of the CA, the Sandiganbayan and the CTA" from the
jurisdiction of the Committee. In a Memorandum, Court Administrator Lock recommended that
the complaint against Duque be docketed as a regular administrative case and that it be referred
to one of the consultants of his office for investigation, report and recommendation. The SC
adopted his recommendations. Despite 4 resettings, Alegria and her counsel failed to appear at
the scheduled hearing. Duque appeared and submitted an "Opposition to Postponement and
Consider this Case Submitted for Resolution." Hearing Officer Designate Quimbo issued an Order
considering the case submitted for resolution. The version of events according to Alegria is as
follows:
In early Feb. 2005, Alegria went on leave for one week because of a personal problem affecting
her work. She had notified Atty. Tolentino, the Branch Clerk of RTC Branch 197. When she
returned, she was told that Duque wanted to talk to her. She was warned by officemates to
distance herself because he had earlier kissed Tolentino on the lips. Alegria said that she did not
think he would do this to her considering he knew her father who was a chief of police. Upon
entering his office, she alleged that she sat on the chair facing him, that he told her to relate her
problem and not to be ashamed because he treated as a daughter. She averred that she cried
and he told her to keep her voice low so as not to be heard outside. He then stood up and locked
the door to his office so that no one would disturb their conversation. He then sat down beside
her and because she was covering her mouth with her hands while she was crying, he took her
hands away because he claimed he could not understand what she was saying. Immediately
after he had removed her hands, he kissed her on the lips with his tongue out. This surprised her.
He repeated this. She regained her composure and told him that his son is outside. Before she
left, he said "I love you" and told her not to tell anyone.
She went to her fathers officehe asked her why she was crying, and to prevent untoward
incidents, she told him that her husband did not come home. During lunch at the canteen, she
met their branch sheriff who noticed that she had been crying. She related to him what had
happened but she asked him to keep it to himself. During the last week of Feb. 2005, she
declared that she was asked by Duque to bring folders for his study. As she gave them, he
embraced her. She pushed him away and he took hold of his "baril." He asked her out on a date.
Because of her fear, she agreed to his invitation. He set it for Mar. 8, but she demurred because
it was her birthday. He suggested Mar. 10 and she agreed.
She declared that Duque called her at the office to remind her of their date. They tried to record
the call by using the cell phone of her officemate but it did not work. Mar. 9: Alegria did not
report to her office. Ronaldo Esguerra, Duques nephew, sent her a text message that Duque was
calling for her. She called Duque, who asked why she was absent. He reminded her of their date

and warned her that if she did not appear, she better not return to the office. For this reason,
Alegria did not report to the office anymore because she knew that she would be the recipient of
a series of memoranda because that is what happens when Duque does not get what he wants,
and that this had also happened to her officemates who do not want to talk for fear of losing
their jobs. Because of the memoranda her salary and other benefits were withheld. That kept her
from immediately filing her complaint.
Duque denied the charges, and related that in the first incident which she narrated, he actually
talked to her about her prolonged absenceshe confessed that her husband was a drug addict,
had another woman, no longer reported for work, and was no longer coming home. She told him
that her own father was estranged from her mother and was also living with another woman. He
merely advised her to take an interest in her work for her to forget family problems. She
allegedly apologized and promised not to repeat being absent. With respect to the other incident,
he asserts that at the time she delivered folders, she was accompanied by Esguerra, the process
server who carried the records and waited with her in his chambers. Alegria and Esguerra left
together.
Duque further pointed out that several memoranda were issued by the Branch Clerk of Court
relative to complainant's performance of her duties. According to Duque, she was no longer
reporting for work since Mar. 9, 2005 and that they have not received any notice or information
as to the reason for her prolonged absence. Because of these prolonged absences, the Branch
Clerk of Court wrote the Leave Division of the OCA requesting for Alegrias immediate dropping
from the roll of employees so that her position can be declared vacant for the Court to indorse a
new employee. Pabello, Officer-in-Charge, Administrative Services, OCA, wrote Alegria requiring
her to explain her unauthorized absences within 5 days from receipt of the letter, favorably
endorsed by the Presiding/Executive Judge otherwise they will be constrained to recommend that
she be dropped from the rolls. Duque claimed it was because of this letter that she filed the
administrative complaint against him, designed to cover up her misfeasance which had been
discovered.
The Hearing Officer Designate transmitted his report to the SC through the OCA recommending
dismissal of the case. In making his recommendations he pointed out that several months
passed before Alegria filed the case; that it was odd that she did not immediately confide in her
father, whose office was in the same building as Duques chambers, but she told their branch
sheriff; that she conveniently omitted to mention who were the officemates who had warned her
about the kissing incident; that Alegria was a habitual absentee even before the alleged
harassment; and that Duque prevented Alegria from collecting her salary for the periods she was
absent. To this end, letters were written to the Court Administrator and to the Clerk of Court for
the Las Pias RTC to withhold any check or other benefit that would accrue to her, and when
these were written, the complaint for sexual harassment surfaced.
Issue: WON Judge Duque is guilty of sexual harassment
Held: NOT GUILTY. PETITION DISMISSED. Under Sec. 3 of A.M. No. 03-03-13-SC, work-related
sexual harassment is committed by an official or employee in the Judiciary who, having authority,
influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work 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 latter. It is committed when "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 any way would discriminate, deprive or
diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee."
While is true that moral ascendancy is present, Duque being the one who recommended Alegria
to her present position, she failed to prove the alleged sexual advances by evidence other than
bare allegations. Duques version of events is not totally implausible. Crucially, he does not admit
to having committed any positive act that can be construed as an untoward sexual advance.
There is no inherent weakness in the version he proffers. Based on the records and
circumstances, there appears to be a strong motive on Alegrias part to make up charges against
Duque. Even before the alleged incident, she was already in hot water, being the recipient of at
least 4memoranda from the Branch Clerk of Court, all of which called her to task for her poor
performance as clerk in charge of civil cases. In addition, a month before she filed the case, the
Office of the Court Administrator had directed her to explain her unauthorized absences and to
include in said explanation a favorable endorsement from the Presiding/Executive Judge. She was
further warned that failure to comply would constrain said office to recommend her dropping
from the rolls.