Eh ayoko na sa iyo. Hindi mo sinabi sa akin na may anak ka! Nasaan na ang tatay ng
anak mo? Wala na? Ano pang hindi mo sinasabi sa akin, may boyfriend ka? Akala ko pa
naman ok ka, kaya nga sinabihan kita dati na sumabay ka sa akin! Ang daming
nagrereklamo sa iyo dito. Hindi ka marunong makisama. Makisama ka naman! Paano
na kung alisin ka dito, makakabalik ka pa ba sa dati mong opisina? Eh ayoko talaga sa
iyo dito. Ano? Do you have a choice? Alam mo ba na ako ang nagrekomenda kay Eva
diyan sa Admin. kay Chairman. Kaya ka nakapasok dito dahil pakiusap ka lang [ni] Eva
sa akin. Alam mo bang nakasalalay dito and posisyon mo dito? Alam mo bang kung ano
mo ako dito? Ha? Ano mo ako dito? xxx Ano ngayon ang gagawin natin eh ayoko nga
sa iyo? Anong gagawin natin ngayon?
cralawlawlibra ry
Respondent further alleged that she was constrained to elevate her complaint before
the Office of the Ombudsman because the PHILRACOM Grievance Committee had not
taken any concrete action on her administrative case which had been pending for over
a month, and also because of petitioner's relatively high position in the office.
To support her complaint-affidavit and to corroborate her account, respondent
submitted the Joint Affidavit6 of her officemates Eva, Eugene and Roman, who
witnessed the entire “kissing” incident on November 23, 2000.
In his Counter-Affidavit/Answer dated March 22, 2001, petitioner alleged that at the
prodding of his staff, he agreed to treat them for lunch, as it was respondent's birthday,
and she had no money for a “blowout”.7 While their group were talking in the
restaurant, he greeted respondent and planted an innocent birthday greeting kiss on
her left cheek, near her lips. He also alleged that he first met respondent when she
applied for Attorney III; that on July 1, 2000, he summoned her to explain the
complaints forwarded by the Personnel and Administrative Division as to her frequent
absence and tardiness; and that his act of reviewing her official functions was in
accordance with his duties and responsibilities as a legal counsel of PHILRACOM.
In her Reply-Affidavit,8 respondent stated that she never solicited any favor from
petitioner, let alone obliged him to spend money for her birthday “blowout”; that his
birthday lunch treat was part of a premeditated evil plan to have her submit to his
sexual desire; that she never allowed him to kiss her on the cheek, much less on the
lips; that in the course of her employment with petitioner as her supervisor, he had
often made sexual advances and gestures towards her, but she still tried to keep their
relationship on a strictly professional level; that the alleged work-related incidents of
tardiness, inefficiency and laziness were all intended to harass her; and that because of
the administrative case she filed against him, she lost her job.
Meanwhile, records show that in an Order of Termination dated January 18, 2001,
Executive Director Lozano ordered the termination of respondent at the close of
business hours of January 19, 2001.9 Records also show that the Commission on
Human Rights issued a Resolution dated May 8, 2001 in CHR Case No. 2001-037 which
found petitioner to have committed acts of sexual harassment, abuse of authority, and
illegal dismissal against respondent.10
cralawred
In an Order dated June 27, 2001, the parties were directed to appear for the