Court is unconvinced in view of the Joint Affidavit of their officemates attesting that he forcibly kissed her on the lips and said: “Ang sarap pala ng labi ni Maila. x x x” In Narvasa v. Sanchez, Jr.,30 the Court found the respondent public officer, who merely attempted to forcibly kiss the complainant, guilty of grave misconduct through sexual harassment, thus: chanRoblesvi rtual Lawli bra ry Respondent’s acts of grabbing petitioner and attempting to kiss her were, no doubt, intentional. Worse, the incident occurred months after he had made similar but subtler overtures to [complainant] De la Cruz, who made it clear that his sexual advances were not welcome. Considering that the acts respondent committed against petitioner were much more aggressive, it was impossible that the offensive nature of his actions could have escaped him. It does not appear that petitioner and respondent were carrying on an amorous relationship that might have justified his attempt to kiss petitioner while they were separated from their companions. Worse, as petitioner and respondent were both married (to other persons), respondent not only took his marital status lightly, he also ignored petitioner’s married state, and good character and reputation. We disagree with the CA that neither corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established rule attended the incident in question. RA 7877, the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, took effect on March 5, 1995. Respondent was charged with knowledge of the existence of this law and its contents, more so because he was a public servant. His act of grabbing petitioner and attempting to kiss her without her consent was an unmistakable manifestation of his intention to violate laws that specifically prohibited sexual harassment in the work environment. Assuming arguendo that respondent never intended to violate RA 7877, his attempt to kiss petitioner was a flagrant disregard of a customary rule that had existed since time immemorial – that intimate physical contact between individuals must be consensual. Respondent’s defiance of custom and lack of respect for the opposite sex were more appalling because he was a married man. Respondent’s act showed a low regard for women and disrespect for petitioner’s honor and dignity.31 (Emphasis added) cralawlawl ibra ry However, it bears emphasis that in Narvasa v. Sanchez, Jr.,32 the Court ordered the respondent public officer's dismissal from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations, because it was the third time that he was penalized for acts of sexual harassment. In determining such penalty, moreover, the Court considered the length of his service as an aggravating circumstance. Apropos to this case is Civil Service Commission v. Nierras33 where the Court upheld the CA's decision finding the respondent public officer guilty of grave misconduct through sexual harassment with a reduced sentence of six (6) months suspension without pay, thus: chanRoblesvi rtual Lawli bra ry Petitioner alleged that the Court of Appeals erred in applying the case of Veloso v. Caminade in imposing the proper penalty on Nierras since the facts of the case are different. Indeed, it should be noted that in the instant case, Oña and Nierras are not co-employees while in the Caminade case, the complainants were the subordinates of