G.R. No.

106341 September 2, 1994
DELFIN G. VILLARAMA, petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
GOLDEN DONUTS, INC., respondents.
On November 16, 1987, petitioner DELFIN VILLARAMA was
employed by private respondent GOLDEN DONUTS, INC., as
its Materials Manager. His starting salary was P6,500.00 per
month, later increased to P8,500.00.
MR. LEOPOLDO H. PRIETO
President
Golden Donuts, Inc.
Dear Sir:
I would like to tender my resignation from my post as Clerk
Typist of Materials Department effective immediately.
Gonzales (petitioner), Chief, Legal Division of the Philippine
Racing Commission (PHILRACOM), for grave misconduct,
sexual harassment and acts of lasciviousness.
AND
Petitioner invited her, along with her officemates,
Administrative Officer V Eva Bataller, Atty. III Eugene Juanson,
and Stenographer II Roman Vidal, to eat lunch at Buddy's
Restaurant, at J.P. Rizal St., Makati City. While seated at the
table waiting for their food to be served, petitioner suddenly
took hold of respondent's face and forcefully kissed her lips in
the presence of Eva, Eugene, Roman and other customers.
Respondent tried to ward off petitioner by pulling her head
away from him, but he persisted on kissing her against her will.
She was so shocked, terrified, and humiliated that she could
hardly talk and move. She wanted to cry, but held her tears for
fear of further embarrassment. After releasing her, petitioner
said: “Ang sarap pala ng labi ni Maila...” Then, he held her
hand and said “Maila sige na...” But, she took away her hand
from him. Thereafter, she immediately reported the incident to
PHILRACOM Executive Director Juan Lozano.

It is really my regret to leave this company which has given me
all the opportunity I long desired. My five (5) months stay in the
company have been very gratifying professionally and
financially and I would not entertain the idea of resigning
except for the most shocking experience I have had in my
whole life.
Last Friday, July 7, 1989, Mr. Delfin Villarama and Mr. Jess de
Jesus invited all the girls of Materials Department for a dinner
when in (sic) the last minute the other three (3) girls decided
not to join the groupp anymore. I do (sic) not have second
thought(s) in accepting their invitation for they are my
colle(a)gues and I had nothing in mind that would in any
manner prompt me to refuse to what appeared to me as a
simple and cordial invitation. We went to a restaurant along
Makati Avenue where we ate our dinner. Mr. Villarama, Mr.
Olaybar and Mr. Jess de Jesus were drinking while we were
eating and (they) even offered me a few drinks and when we
were finished, they decided to bring me home. While on my
way, I found out that Mr. Villarama was not driving the way to
my house. I was wondering why we were taking the wrong way
until I found out that we were entering a motel. I was really
shock(ed). I did not expect that a somewhat reputable person
like Mr. Villarama could do such a thing to any of his
subordinates. I should have left the company without any word
but I feel that I would be unfair to those who might be similarly
situated. I hope that you would find time to investigate the
veracity of my allegations and make each (sic) responsible for
is own deed. (emphasis ours)
Respondent also alleged that prior to that “kissing” incident,
petitioner had already degraded her person on four (4)
separate occasions, namely: (1) on the very first day she met
him in the office, he offered to purchase her a cell phone so
that he can text her, which offer she straightforwardly refused;
(2) on that same day, he wanted her to join him in his car in
going home, which she likewise refused; (3) a week later, he
asked her to eat out for lunch; again, she refused; and (4) on
August 23, 2000, after her sick leave from office, petitioner
called her in his office and scolded her and uttered the
following unsavory.
Eh ayoko na sa iyo. Hindi mo sinabi sa akin na may anak ka!
Nasaan na ang tatay ng anak mo? Wala na? Ano pang hindi
mo sinasabi sa akin, may boyfriend ka? Akala ko pa naman ok
ka, kaya nga sinabihan kita dati na sumabay ka sa akin! Ang
daming nagrereklamo sa iyo dito. Hindi ka marunong
makisama. Makisama ka naman! Paano na kung alisin ka dito,
makakabalik ka pa ba sa dati mong opisina? Eh ayoko talaga
sa iyo dito. Ano? Do you have a choice? Alam mo ba na ako
ang nagrekomenda kay Eva diyan sa Admin. kay Chairman.
Kaya ka nakapasok dito dahil pakiusap ka lang [ni] Eva sa
akin. Alam mo bang nakasalalay dito and posisyon mo dito?
Alam mo bang kung ano mo ako dito? Ha? Ano mo ako dito?
xxx Ano ngayon ang gagawin natin eh ayoko nga sa iyo?
Anong gagawin natin ngayon?

Thank you very much and more power.
G.R. No. 175433, March 11, 2015
ATTY. JACINTO C. GONZALES, Petitioner, v. ATTY. MAILA
CLEMEN F. SERRANO, Respondent.
DECISION
administrative complaint filed by Atty. Maila Clemen F. Serrano
(respondent) against her direct superior, Atty. Jacinto C.
As to petitioner's sole defense that he merely gave respondent
an innocent birthday greeting kiss, the Court is unconvinced in
view of the Joint Affidavit of their officemates attesting that he
forcibly kissed her on the lips and said: “Ang sarap pala ng labi
ni Maila. x x x”
Before the Family Code of the Philippines took effect on
August 3, 1988 (Memorandum Circular No. 85), any male
aged 16 or upwards, and any female of the age of 14 or
upwards, not under any of the impediments mentioned in
Articles 80 to 84 of the Civil Code, may contract marriage
(Article 54, Civil Code of the Philippines). If the male is
less than 20 years old and the female is less than 18 years
old, they shall be required to obtain the consent to their
marriage of their father, mother or guardian, or persons
having legal charge of them, in the order mentioned
(Article 61, Ibid.).
When the Family Code of the Philippines took effect, the
marrying age of both the parties to a marriage was fixed at
eighteen (18) years old (Article 5, Family Code of the
Philippines). In case either or both parties are between the
ages of eighteen (18) and twenty-one (21), they shall, in
addition to the requirements of marriage, secure the
consent to their marriage of their father, mother, surviving
parent or guardian, or persons having legal charge of
them, in the order mentioned (Article 14, Ibid.).
G.R. No. 49549 August 30, 1990
EVELYN CHUA-QUA, petitioner,
vs. HON. JACOBO C. CLAVE, in his capacity as Presidential
Executive Assistant, and TAY TUNG HIGH SCHOOL, INC.
(Bacolod City)
Class adviser in the sixth grade where one Bobby Qua was
enrolled. Since it was the policy of the school to extend
remedial instructions to its students, Bobby Qua was imparted
such instructions in school by petitioner. 1 In the course
thereof, the couple fell in love and on December 24, 1975, they
got married in a civil ceremony solemnized in Iloilo City by
Hon. Cornelio G. Lazaro, City Judge of Iloilo. 2 Petitioner was
then thirty (30) years of age but Bobby Qua being sixteen (16)
years old, consent and advice to the marriage was given by his
mother, Mrs. Concepcion Ong. 3 Their marriage was ratified in
accordance with the rites of their religion in a church wedding
solemnized by Fr. Nick Melicor at Bacolod City on January 10,
1976.
n February 4, 1976, private respondent filed with the sub-
regional office of the Department of Labor at Bacolod City an
application for clearance to terminate the employment of
petitioner on the following ground: "For abusive and unethical
conduct unbecoming of a dignified school teacher and that her
continued employment is inimical to the best interest, and
would downgrade the high moral values, of the school.
HELD::
. . . While admittedly, no one directly saw Evelyn Chua and
Bobby Qua doing immoral acts inside the classroom it seems
obvious and this Office is convinced that such a happening
indeed transpired within the solitude of the classroom after
regular class hours. The marriage between Evelyn Chua and
Bobby Qua is the best proof which confirms the suspicion that
the two indulged in amorous relations in that place during
those times of the day. . . . 27
With the finding that there is no substantial evidence of the
imputed immoral acts, it follows that the alleged violation of the
Code of Ethics governing school teachers would have no
basis. Private respondent utterly failed to show that petitioner
took advantage of her position to court her student. If the two
eventually fell in love, despite the disparity in their ages and
academic levels, this only lends substance to the truism that
the heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know.
But, definitely, yielding to this gentle and universal emotion is
not to be so casually equated with immorality. The deviation of
the circumstances of their marriage from the usual societal
pattern cannot be considered as a defiance of contemporary
social mores.
It would seem quite obvious that the avowed policy of the
school in rearing and educating children is being unnecessarily
bannered to justify the dismissal of petitioner. This policy,
however, is not at odds with and should not be capitalized on
to defeat the security of tenure granted by the Constitution to
labor. In termination cases, the burden of proving just and valid
cause for dismissing an employee rests on the employer and
his failure to do so would result in a finding that the dismissal is
unjustified.
The charge against petitioner not having been substantiated,
we declare her dismissal as unwarranted and illegal. It being
apparent, however, that the relationship between petitioner and
private respondent has been inevitably and severely strained,
we believe that it would neither be to the interest of the parties
nor would any prudent purpose be served by ordering her
reinstatement.
DIOSCORO F. BACSIN, G.R. No. 146053
vs. EDUARDO O. WAHIMAN, Promulgated:
April 30, 2008
Petitioner is a public school teacher of Pandan Elementary
School, Pandan, Mambajao, Camiguin Province. Respondent
Eduardo O. Wahiman is the father of AAA, an elementary
school student of the petitioner.
AAA claimed that on August 16, 1995, petitioner asked her to
be at his office to do an errand.[2] Once inside, she saw him
get a folder from one of the cartons on the floor near his table,
and place it on his table. He then asked her to come closer,
and when she did, held her hand, then touched and fondled
her breast. She stated that he fondled her breast five times,
and that she felt afraid.[3] A classmate of hers, one Vincent B.
Sorrabas, claiming to have witnessed the incident, testified that
the fondling incident did happen just as AAA related it.
HELD: Leaving aside the discrepancy of the designation of the
offense in the formal charge, it must be discussed whether or
not petitioner is indeed guilty, as found by the CA and CSC, of
Grave Misconduct, as distinguished from Simple Misconduct.
From the findings of fact of the CSC, it is clear that there is
misconduct on the part of petitioner. The term misconduct
denotes intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule
of law or standard of behavior.[13]
We agree with the rulings of the CSC and the CA.
In grave misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to
violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule must
be manifest.[14] The act of petitioner of fondling one of his
students is against a law, RA 7877, and is doubtless
inexcusable. The particular act of petitioner cannot in any way
be construed as a case of simple misconduct. Sexually
molesting a child is, by any norm, a revolting act that it cannot
but be categorized as a grave offense. Parents entrust the care
and molding of their children to teachers, and expect them to
be their guardians while in school. Petitioner has violated that
trust. The charge of grave misconduct proven against
petitioner demonstrates his unfitness to remain as a teacher
and continue to discharge the functions of his office.
Petitioners second argument need not be discussed further, as
he was rightly found guilty of grave misconduct. Under Rule IV,
Section 52 of the CSC Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases,
Grave Misconduct carries with it the penalty of dismissal for the
first offense. Thus, the penalty imposed on petitioner is in
accordance with the Rules.

Petitioner was not denied due process of law, contrary to his

claims. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to
be heard, or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an
opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek for a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[15] These
elements are present in this case, where petitioner was
properly informed of the charge and had a chance to refute it,
but failed.

A teacher who perverts his position by sexually harassing a

student should not be allowed, under any circumstance, to
practice this noble profession. So it must be here.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this petition is hereby

DISMISSED, and the decision of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No.
51900 is hereby AFFIRMED.

Costs against petitioner.