FACTS:
The instant case stemmed
from three cases of sexual harassment filed separately against respondent by
petitioner along with Mary Gay P. de la Cruz and Zenaida M. Gayaton, who are
also employees of the LGU.
In her affidavit-complaint,
De la Cruz claimed that, sometime
in February 2000, respondent handed her a note saying, "Gay, I like
you." Offended by respondent’s inappropriate remark, de la Cruz admonished
him for giving her such a note and told him that she would give the note to his
wife. Respondent then grabbed the note from her and tore it into pieces.
However, this first incident was followed by a message sent to De la Cruz
sometime in March 2002 in which he said, "Ka date ko si Mary Gay… ang
tamis ng halik mo."
On the other hand, Gayaton
narrated that, on April 5, 2002,
respondent whispered to her during a retirement program, "Oy flawless, pumanaw ka met ditan" while twice pinching her upper left
arm near the shoulder in a slow manner.
A few days later, Gayaton
received a text message while she was passing respondent’s car in front of the
municipal hall. The message said, "Pauwi ka na ba sexy?" Gayaton later verified
through respondent’s clerk, Alona Agas, that the sender of the message was
respondent.
On or about April 22 to 25,
2002, Gayaton received several messages from respondent stating: (1) "I
like you"; (2) "Have a date with me"; (3) "Don’t tell to (sic) others that I told that I like you
because nakakahiya";
(4) "Puso mo to pag bigay moto sakin, I would be very happy"
and (5) "I slept and dreamt nice things about you."
Finally, as far as
petitioner’s complaint was concerned, she asserted that, on November 18, 2000, during a
field trip of officers and members of the St. Joseph Multi-Purpose Cooperative
to the Grotto Vista Resort in Bulacan, respondent pulled her towards him and
attempted to kiss her. Petitioner resisted and was able to escape the clutches
of respondent to rejoin the group that they were travelling with. Respondent
apologized to petitioner thrice regarding that incident.
ISSUE:
Whether the
acts committed by respondent against petitioner (since the CSC resolution only
touched upon petitioner’s complaint) constitute simple misconduct or grave
misconduct?
DECISION:
Misconduct means intentional
wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior. To constitute an administrative
offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of
the official functions and duties of a public officer. In grave misconduct, as distinguished
from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the
law or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be manifest.
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 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.
What is the theories involved in this case??
ReplyDelete