Sexual Harassment Case

Delay in reporting sexual harassment is justified because of the woman’s situation

Philippine Aeolus Automotive United Corporation vs. NLRC and Cortez
G.R. No. 124617, April 28, 2000
Bellosillo, J.

Facts: Rosalinda Cortez was the company nurse at Philippine Aeolus. As early as her first year of employment, her Plant Manager, William Chua, already manifested a special liking for her, that she was receiving special treatment from him who would oftentimes invite her “for a date,” which she would as often refuse. On many occasions, he would make sexual advances - touching her hands, putting his arms around her shoulders, running his fingers on her arms and telling her she looked beautiful. The special treatment and sexual advances continued during her employment for four (4) years but she never reciprocated his flirtations, until finally, she noticed that his attitude towards her changed. He made her understand that if she would not give in to his sexual advances he would cause her termination from the service; and he made good his threat when he started harassing her. She just found out one day that her table which was equipped with telephone and intercom units and containing her personal belongings was transferred without her knowledge to a place with neither telephone nor intercom, for which reason, an argument ensued when she confronted Chua resulting in her being charged with gross disrespect. The company then dismissed her for throwing a stapler and throwing invectives, among others, at her Plant Manager, Chua. Rosalinda, thereafter, filed an illegal dismissal case and explained that the incident arose when she had been trying to refuse the sexual advances of Chua. The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission ruled in her favor, holding that the dismissal was illegal and ordering the company to pay her moral damages. The corporation elevated the case on certiorari to the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion.

Decision: The Supreme Court declared Rosalinda’s dismissal illegal and affirmed the award of moral damages. It did not give merit to the company’s argument that it is unbelievable that it took her four (4) years before she reacted violently in defense of her womanhood. The court recognized Mr. Chua’s acts as sexual harassment and explained that there is no time period for reporting such crime saying:

“Public respondent in thus concluding appears baffled why it took private respondent more than four (4) years to expose William Chua’s alleged sexual harassment. It reasons out that it would have been more prepared to support her position if her act of throwing the stapler and uttering invectives on William Chua were her immediate reaction to his amorous overtures. In that case, according to public respondent, she would have been justified for such outburst because she would have been merely protecting her womanhood, her person and her rights.

We are not persuaded. The gravamen of the offense in sexual harassment is not the violation of the employee’s sexuality but the abuse of power by the employer. Any employee, male or female, may rightfully cry “foul” provided the claim is well substantiated. Strictly speaking, there is no time period within which he or she is expected to complain through the proper channels. The time to do so may vary depending upon the needs, circumstances, and more importantly, the emotional threshold of the employee.

Private respondent admittedly allowed four (4) years to pass before finally coming out with her employer’s sexual impositions. Not many women, especially in this country, are made of the stuff that can endure the agony and trauma of a public, even corporate, scandal. If petitionercorporation had not issued the third memorandum that terminated the services of private respondent, we could only speculate how much longer she would keep her silence. Moreover, few persons are privileged indeed to transfer from one employer to another. The dearth of quality employment has become a daily “monster” roaming the streets that one may not be expected to give up one’s employment easily but to hang on to it, so to speak, by all tolerable means. Perhaps, to private respondent’s mind, for as long as she could outwit her employer’s ploys she would continue on her job and consider them as mere occupational hazards. This uneasiness in her place of work thrived in an atmosphere of tolerance for four (4) years, and one could only imagine the prevailing anxiety and resentment, if not bitterness, that beset her all that time. But William Chua faced reality soon enough. Since he had no place in private respondent’s heart, so must she have no place in his office. So, he provoked her, harassed her, and finally dislodged her; and for finally venting her pent-up anger for years, he “found” the perfect reason to terminate her.”

Sexual harassment is an imposition of misplaced “superiority” which is enough to dampen an employee’s spirit in her capacity for advancement. It affects her sense of judgment. It changes her life, if for this alone private respondent should be adequately compensated.

__________
N.B. the name of the complainant has been changed to protect her privacy.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 9th, 2006 at 3:38 pm and is filed under Book Projects. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.