Not Yet Criminal But Still Improper - A Law Each Day (Keeps Trouble Away

By virtue of RA 7877 which was approved on Valentine's Day of 1995, sexual harassment became a punishable offense. Before the effectivity of said law, can a person be charged or be held liable for sexual harassment? This is the question raised by a judge in this case.

The judge here was administratively charged before the Supreme Court for sexual harassment, among others, by one of the female employees in his court whom we shall call Zeny.

In her affidavit, Zeny narrated a series of incidents beginning December, 1992 and culminating in her transfer to another court.

The first incident happened when Zeny asked the judge permission to go on leave. The judge denied it saying he would miss her. At another time he called her to his chambers for a conversation because he was feeling blue. He added that because he enjoyed her company, he would call her everytime he felt that way.

During the Christmas party of the court employees, the judge approached Zeny and whispered to her as she was watching a children's play, "When Will We Make Ours". After the party, the judge asked her to go with him to a disco. Zeny refused.

But that was not the end of Zeny's harrowing and vexing experience. At another time, also at night, the judge ordered his sheriff to fetch Zeny so that she could join him in a drinking spree. When she refused, the judge ordered the sheriff to go back to reiterate his invitation with a warning for her not to tell anybody about the incident. Still later the judge called her to his chambers and suddenly asked, "are you ready for our date tonight?" Zeny, however, became more firm in her refusal.

Since then Zeny began distancing herself. And when the judge confronted her about her behavior, Zeny already told the judge outright that she did not like his actuations. This prompted the judge to remind Zeny that if she did not like his company, she "better look for another job". Subsequently, the judge already found fault in her job until she was forced to seek a transfer to another court.

Aside from flatly denying the charge and maintaining that he did not invite her to lie in bed with him and that there was nothing wrong in his statements and invitations which were equivocal and subject to varying interpretations, as well as insinuating that Zeny was a woman of loose morals who purportedly bestowed sexual favors quite freely, the judge pointed out that when he allegedly committed the sexual harassment, there was no law (RA 7877) yet since the law was approved only on Feb. 14, 1995. Was the judge correct?

No. First of all, his statements and actuations standing alone may indeed admit of an innocent-if strained -- interpretation. Undeniable, however, is the manifest sexual undertone in all of them. Taken together, his actions towards Zeny for several months leave no doubt that he was indeed soliciting sexual favors from his subordinates. Besides, his estimation of her as a woman of loose morals bolster the conclusion that he did in fact solicit such favor from her.

The fact that RA 7877 was not yet in effect at the time, does not make his conduct regular or valid. Sexual harassment was not criminal at that time but neither was it acceptable, as in fact it has never been acceptable. The purpose of this administrative case is not to determine whether he violated RA 7877, but whether by his acts he has remained faithful to the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides that "a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities" and that "a judge should behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary". His insistence that he did not have sexual intercourse with Zeny does not render his conduct less reprehensible. Immorality is not based on sexual intercourse alone but includes conduct inconsistent with rectitude or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity and dissoluteness; an inconsiderate attitude toward good, order and public welfare. His conduct indubitably bears the mark of impropriety and immorality. Because of these acts and other violations for which the judge was found guilty, the judge was dismissed. Zeny's case is similar to Administrative Case No. RTJ-98-1424 promulgated by the Supreme Court on Oct. 13, 1999.

Atty. Sison's e-mail address is: [email protected]