SC upholds sexual harassment conviction vs ex-NLRC chair

MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court recently upheld the conviction of sexual harassment against former National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) chairman Rogelio Rayala.

In 1998, Ma. Lourdes Domingo, a stenographic reporter at the NLRC, filed a sexual harassment complaint against Rayala before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).

Domingo accused the former NLRC chair of unsolicited and untoward acts of body contact, making statements with sexual overtones, initiating inappropriate conversations, and giving her unsolicited money for school expenses, among other promises of future privileges.

After an investigation by the Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI) constituted under Republic Act 7877 or the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act, the Office of the President found Rayala guilty and ordered his dismissal.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the OP’s ruling on Rayala’s commission of sexual harassment but modified the penalty from dismissal to one-year suspension in accordance with Administrative Order 250 or the Rules and Regulations Implementing RA 7877 in the Department of Labor and Employment.

In a 31-page decision penned by Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura, the Supreme Court’s Third Division upheld the finding of the CODI, the OP, and the CA that Rayala committed the administrative offense of sexual harassment under RA 7877.

Concurring with the decision were Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Renato Corona, and Ruben Reyes.

The SC held that the demand, request, or requirement of a sexual favor need not be articulated in a categorical oral or written statement and instead may already be sufficiently discerned from the offender’s acts.

Even though no offer of work favors – such as continued employment or promotion, nor threats such as dismissal – were extended by Rayala to Domingo, the court found the acts complained by Domingo as enough conditions for harassment for generating “an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee,” which is one of the conditions provided under Section 3 of RA 7877, defining work-related sexual harassment.

The SC also dismissed Rayala’s allegations of conspiracy constituting political harassment in the absence of proof of ill motive on the part of Domingo, together with other NLRC employees as her witnesses, who stood to lose their jobs, among other unpleasant consequences, for pressing charges against the highest official of the NLRC.

The court also affirmed the penalty of one-year suspension imposed by the CA.

Under AO 250, the maximum penalty for the first offense of acts of disgraceful and immoral conduct is suspension for one-year.

The second offense merits dismissal. The SC however held that the OP cannot validly dismiss Rayala.

“Rayala has thrown every argument in the book in a vain effort to effect his exoneration. He even puts Domingo’s character in question and casts doubt on the morality of the former President who ordered, albeit erroneously, his dismissal from the service. Unfortunately for him, these are not significant factors in the disposition of the case. It is his character that is in question here and sadly, the inquiry showed that he has been found wanting,” said the Supreme Court.  – Sandy Araneta