Duty of the Employer or Head Office
• Promulgate appropriate rules and regulations
– Must be in consultation with and jointly approved
by the employees or students or trainees through
their duly designated representatives
– Prescribe the procedure for the investigation of
sexual harassment cases and the administrative
sanctions therefore
– Shall include, among others, guidelines on proper
decorum in the workplace and educational or
training institutions
• Create committee on decorum and
investigation of cases on sexual harassment
– Committee shall:
• Conduct meetings with officers and employees,
teachers, instructors, professors, coaches, trainers and
students or trainees to increase understanding and
prevent incidents of sexual harassment
• Conduct investigation of alleged cases constituting
sexual harassment
Villarama v. NLRC
GR.No. 106341,September 2, 1994
• Petitioner Villarama, a materials manager, was
charged with sexual harassment by Divina
Gonzaga, a clerk-typist on probation assigned in
his department.
• Facts that led to the act as stated in her
resignation letter:
– Mr. Villarama and Mr. de Jesus invited all the GIRLS of
the Materials Department for a dinner.
– In the last minute, the 3 other girls decided not to join
the group anymore.
– The clerk-typist still decided to join since she
thought that the two are her colleagues and had
nothing in mind that would in any manner prompt
her to refuse a simple and cordial invitation.
– The 3 gentlemen were drinking while eating and
even offered the lady a few drinks.
– When they were finished, the gentlemen decided
to bring her home.
– While on their way home, the clerk-typist found
out that instead of driving her to her home, the
gentlemen were taking her to a motel.
• The Court ruled that because of the sexual
harassment conducted by petitioner
Villarama, there is valid cause to terminate
him from his employment
• Basis for termination of employment
– Article 277 (b) of the Labor Code
– Loss of trust and confidence is a good ground for
dismissing a managerial employee.
– As a managerial employee, petitioner is bound by a
more exacting work ethics. He succumbed to his
moral perversity and perpetrated against his
subordinate, he provides justifiable ground for his
dismissal for lack of trust and confidence
– Sexual harassment is reprehensible enough but more
when inflicted by those with moral ascendancy over
their victims.
Libres v. NLRC
G.R. No. 123737 May 28, 1999
• Petitioner Carlos G. Libres, an electrical
engineer, was holding a managerial position with
National Steel Corporation (NSC) as Assistant
Manager received a Notice of Investigation from
his immediate superior, requesting him to
submit a written explanation relative to the
charge of sexual harassment made by Susan D.
Capiral.
• The manager’s act of fondling the hand,
massaging the shoulder and caressing the nape
of his secretary constitutes sexual harassment.
• Petitioner alleged that at the time of the happening of the act, R.A.
No. 7877 has not yet been signed into law.
• However, the Court ruled that the manager is still liable for sexual
harassment.
• Republic Act No. 7877 was not yet in effect at the time of the
occurrence of the act complained of. It was still being deliberated
upon in Congress when petitioner's case was decided by the Labor
Arbiter.
• As a rule, laws shall have no retroactive effect unless otherwise
provided, or except in a criminal case when their application will
favor the accused.
• The Labor Arbiter have to rely on the MEC report and the common
connotation of sexual harassment as it is generally as understood
by the public. Faced with the same predicament, the NLRC had to
agree with the Labor Arbiter. In so doing, the NLRC did not commit
any abuse of discretion in affirming the decision of the Labor
Arbiter.