Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Verbal
Requests or demands for sexual favors;
Lurid remarks
Others
Use of objects, pictures or graphics, letters or writing notes
with sexual underpinnings.
Section 4
Duties of the Employer
Promulgate appropriate rules and regulations
in consultation with and jointly approved by
the employees or students or trainees, through
their duly designated representatives,
prescribing the procedure for the investigation
or sexual harassment cases and the
administrative sanctions therefor.
Administrative sanctions shall not be a bar to
prosecution in the proper courts for unlawful
acts of sexual harassment.
Duties of the Employer
Create a committee on decorum and investigation of
cases on sexual harassment. The committee shall
conduct meetings, as the case may be, with other
officers and employees, teachers, instructors,
professors, coaches trainers and students or trainees to
increase understanding and prevent incidents of
sexual harassment. It shall also conduct the
investigation of the alleged cases constituting sexual
harassment.
Section 5
Liabilities
The employer or head of office, educational training
institution shall be solidarily liable for damage
arising from the acts of sexual harassment committed
in the employment, education or training environment
if the employer or head of office, educational or
training institution is informed of such acts by the
offended party and no immediate action is taken
thereon.
Section 6
Independent action for damages
Nothing in this Act shall preclude the victim
of work, education or training-related sexual
harassment from instituting a separate and
independent action for damages and other
affirmative relief.
Section 7
Penalties
Any person who violates the provisions of this Act
shall, upon conviction, be penalized by imprisonment
of not less than one (1) month nor more than six (6)
months, or a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos
(P10,000) nor more than Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000), or both such fine and imprisonment at the
discretion of the court.
Any action arising from the violation of the provision
of this Act shall prescribe in three (3) years.
SAMPLE CASES
Libres vs NLRC (GR No. 123737, May 28, 1999)
Facts:
Petitioner Carlos G. Libres, an electrical engineer, was holding a managerial position with
National Steel Corporation (NSC) as Assistant Manager. He received a Notice of
Investigation from Assistant Vice President Isidro F. Hynson Jr., his immediate superior,
requesting him to submit a written explanation relative to the charge of sexual
harassment made by Susan D. Capiral, Hynson's secretary. The notice also warned him
that failure to file his written explanation would be construed as a waiver of his right to
be heard. On 14 August 1993 petitioner submitted his written explanation denying the
accusation against him and offering to submit himself for clarificatory interrogation.
Hynson Jr. conducted an internal investigation to which Libres and Capiral were invited
to ventilate their respective sides of the issue. The MEC, after deliberation, concluded
that the charges against petitioner constituted a violation of Item 2, Table V, of the Plant's
Rules and Regulations. It opined that "touching a female subordinate's hand and
shoulder, caressing her nape and telling other people that Capiral was the one who
hugged and kissed or that she responded to the sexual advances are unauthorized acts
that damaged her honor." The MEC finally concluded that petitioner's acts clearly
constituted sexual harassment as charged and recommended petitioner's suspension for
thirty (30) days without pay.
Petitioner wrote Melchor Q. Villamor, Vice President for Manufacturing, requesting
reconsideration of his suspension, but the same was denied. On 12 February 1994 the
suspension order was finally implemented.
Libres filed a complaint for illegal suspension and unjust
discrimination against respondent NSC and its officers, private
respondents herein, before the Labor Arbiter. Citing the failure of the
MEC to grant him audience despite his offer to answer clarificatory
questions. Labor Arbiter Nicodemus G. Palangan however ruled that
due process was properly observed.
Petitioner argues that the issue of sexual harassment was not
adequately considered as he noted that the finding of the NLRC was
made without proper basis in fact and in law. He maintains that the
NLRC merely adopted the conclusions of the Labor Arbiter.
He argues strongly that in rejecting his plea, the MEC clearly denied
him an opportunity to be heard and present his side.
Petitioner assails the failure of the NLRC to strictly apply RA No. 7877
to the instant case. We note however, that petitioner never raised the
applicability of the law in his appeal to the NLRC nor in his motion for
reconsideration. Issues or arguments must chiefly be raised before the
court or agency concerned so as to allow it to pass upon and correct its
mistakes without the intervention of a higher court.
Issues:
Was the issue of sexual harassment was not adequately
considered?
Was petitioner not afforded due process because his
demand for personal confrontation with the victim
was brushed aside by the MEC?
Ruling:
Republic Act No. 7877 was not yet in effect at the time of the occurrence of the act
complained of. Hence, the Labor Arbiter have to rely on the MEC report and the common
connotation of sexual harassment as it is generally understood by the public. The NLRC
did not commit any abuse of discretion in affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
As a managerial employee, petitioner is bound by more exacting work ethics. Public
respondent therefore is correct in its observation that the Labor Arbiter was in fact
lenient in his application of the law and jurisprudence for which petitioner must be
grateful and not gripe against.
Petitioner further claims that the delay in instituting the complaint shows that it was
only an afterthought. We disagree. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, it could be
expected since Libres was Capiral's immediate superior. Fear of retaliation and backlash,
not to forget the social humiliation and embarrassment
Petitioner Libres never questioned the veracity of Capiral's allegations. In fact his
narration even corroborated the latter's assertion in several material points. He only
raised issue on the complaint's protracted filing.
On the question of due process, we find that the requirements thereof were sufficiently
complied with.
It is undeniable that petitioner was given a Notice of Investigation informing him of the
charge of sexual harassment as well as advising him to submit a written explanation
regarding the matter; that he submitted his written explanation to his superior. Petition
is DISMISSED.
Domingo vs Rayala (GR No.
155831, February 18, 2008)
• 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 commited 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 employee’s 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 Rayala’s 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 Domingo’s 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.
Dr. Rico S. Jacutin vs. People ( GR
No. 140604, March 6, 2002)
Facts:
Petitioner, City Health Officer Rico Jacutin of Cagayan de Oro City, was
charged before the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, with the crime of Sexual
Harassment. The accused, a public officer, being then the City Health Officer
of Cagayan de Oro City with salary grade 26 but a high ranking official by
express provision of RA 7975, committing the offense in relation to his official
functions and taking advantage of his position, did there and then, willfully,
unlawfully and criminally, demand, solicit, request sexual favors from Ms. Juliet
Q. Yee, a young 22 year-old woman, single and fresh graduate of Bachelor of
Science in Nursing who was seeking employment in the office of the accused,
namely: by demanding from Ms. Yee that she should, expose her body and
allow her private parts to be mashed and stimulated by the accused, which
sexual favor was made as a condition for the employment of Ms. Yee in the
Family Program of the Office of the accused, thus constituting sexual
harassment
Upon his arraignment, petitioner pled not guilty to the offense charged; hence,
trial proceeded.
Issues:
Petitioner cannot be convicted of the crime of sexual
harassment in view of the inapplicability of Republic
Act No. 7877 to the case at bar.
Ruling:
The above contentions of petitioner are not meritorious. Section 3 of Republic
Act 7877 provides:
"SEC. 3. Work, Education or Training-related Sexual Harassment Defined.
Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is committed by an
employer, employee, 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 any way would
discriminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect said employee."
Petitioner was the City Health Officer of Cagayan de Oro City, a position he held when
complainant, a newly graduated nurse, saw him to enlist his help in her desire to gain
employment. He did try to show an interest in her plight, her father being a boyhood
friend, but finding no opening suitable for her in his office, he asked her about accepting
a job in a family planning research project. It all started from there; the Sandiganbayan
recited the rest of the story:
"x x x. Succeeding in convincing the complainant that her physical examination would
be a part of a research, accused asked complainant if she would agree that her private
parts (bolts) would be seen. Accused assured her that with her cooperation in the
research, she would gain knowledge from it. As complainant looked upon the accused
with utmost reverence, respect, and paternal guidance, she agreed to undergo the
physical examination
While the City Mayor had the exclusive prerogative in appointing city personnel, it
should stand to reason, nevertheless, that a recommendation from petitioner in the
appointment of personnel in the municipal health office could carry good
weight. Indeed, petitioner himself would appear to have conveyed, by his words and
actions, an impression that he could facilitate Juliet's employment. Indeed, petitioner
would not have been able to take undue liberalities on the person of Juliet had it not been
for his high position in the City Health Office of Cagayan de Oro City. The findings of
the Sandiganbayan were bolstered by the testimony of Vivian Yu, petitioner's secretary
between 1979 to 1994, of Iryn Lago Salcedo, Public Health Nurse II, and of Farah
Dongallo y Alkuino, a city health nurse, all of whom were said to have likewise been
victims of perverse behavior by petitioner.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9231
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE
ELIMINATION OF THE WORST FORMS
OF CHILD LABOR AND AFFORDING
STRONGER PROTECTION FOR THE
WORKING CHILD
What is a child?
jenniferverula.blogsome.com
A person under eighteen
(18) years of age
One who is 18 or above but
unable to fully take care or
protect oneself due to a
physical or mental disability
or condition
What is the minimum employable
age?
15
thegiantnapkin.com
years old
Article 137 of the Labor Code
When is a child below 15 employable?
Child is below 15
maximum of 4 hours a day, 20 hours a week
should not work from 8 pm to 6 am
What forms of employment of
children are prohibited?
Child labor
Prohibited advertisements
jenniferverula.blogsome.com
any work or economic
activity
performed by a child
that subjects him or her to
any form of exploitation
or is harmful to his or her
health and safety or
physical, mental or
psychological development.
(IRR, Section 3[b])
Prohibited Advertisements
No child shall be employed as a model in any
advertisement directly or indirectly promoting:
alcoholic beverages or
intoxicating drinks
tobacco and its
byproducts
gambling
any form of violence or
pornography
globalnanpa.co
Worst Forms of Child Labor
zoriah.net
Slavery or practices similar
to slavery
Prostitution or
pornography
Illegal or illicit activities
odisky.blogspot.com
Work which is hazardous
or likely to be harmful to
the health, safety or
morals of children
Hazardous or Likely to be
Harmful
Degrades the dignity of a child as a human being;
Exposes child to physical, emotional or sexual abuse,
or is found to be highly stressful psychologically or
may prejudice morals;
Performed underground, underwater or at dangerous
heights;
Involves use of dangerous machinery, equipment and
tools;
Exposes the child to physical danger, such as
dangerous feats of balancing, physical strength or
contortion, or requires the manual transport of heavy
loads;
Hazardous or Likely to be
Harmful
worldvision.org
Performed in an unhealthy
environment exposing the child
to hazardous working
conditions, elements,
substances, etc.;
Performed under particularly
difficult conditions;
Exposes the child to biological
agents; or
Involves the manufacture or
handling of explosives and other
pyrotechnic products.
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS ON THE WORKING CHILD’S
INCOME
Ownership Usage Administration