Domingo vs.

Rayala
546 Scra 90
Facts:
Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo (Domingo), then Stenographic Reporter III at
the NLRC, filed a Complaint for sexual harassment against Rayala, the
chairman of NLRC.
She alleged that Rayala called her in his office and touched her
shoulder, part of her neck then tickled her ears. Rayala argued that his
acts does not constitute sexual harassment because for it to exist,
there must be a demand, request or requirement of sexual favor.
Issue:
Whether or not Rayala commit sexual harassment.
Rulings:
Yes.
The law penalizing sexual harassment in our jurisdiction is RA 7877.
Section 3 thereof defines work-related sexual harassment in this wise:
Sec. 3. Work, Education or Training-related Sexual Harassment Defined.
Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is committed
by an employer, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher,
instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having
authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or
training or education environment, demands, requests or otherwise
requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the
demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by the
object of said Act.
(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment
is committed when:
(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the
employment, re-employment or continued employment of said
individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation,
terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to grant the
sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the employee
which in a way would discriminate, deprive or diminish employment
opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee;
. (2) The above acts would impair the employees rights or
privileges under existing labor laws; or
. (3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive environment for the employee.
even if we were to test Rayalas acts strictly by the standards set in
Section 3, RA 7877, he would still be administratively liable. It is true
that this provision calls for a demand, request or requirement of a

sexual favor. But it is not necessary that the demand, request or

requirement of a sexual favor be articulated in a categorical oral or
written statement. It may be discerned, with equal certitude, from the
acts of the offender. Holding and squeezing Domingos shoulders,
running his fingers across her neck and tickling her ear, having
inappropriate conversations with her, giving her money allegedly for
school expenses with a promise of future privileges, and making
statements with unmistakable sexual overtones all these acts of
Rayala resound with deafening clarity the unspoken request for a
sexual favor.