However, in sexual harassment cases, the acts complained of must be in consonance with human experience.

In Digitel vs. Soriano,

the Director for Market and Communications sued her superiors, which were the Senior Vice-President and Senior Executive Vice- President. The woman filed a complaint for sexual harassment 11 months after she tendered her resignation. The woman claimed that during a company party, while they were seated in the sofa, one of the perpetrators crept his hand under a throw pillow and poked her vagina several times. She justified her failure to flee by claiming that she was hemmed in by the arm of the sofa. Furthermore, she claimed that thereafter, when she was dancing with one of the perpetrators, the latter groped her breasts and buttocks.In this case, the Supreme Court did not give credence to the allegations of the woman and dismissed the charges of sexual harassment. The Supreme Court ratiocinated that if indeed the perpetrators performed the condemnable act, why didnt the woman slap the perpetrators and left the event. The Supreme Court further held that any woman in her right mind, whose vagina had earlier been poked several times without her consent and against her will, would, after liberating herself from the clutches of the person who offended her, raise hell.

RA 7877 mandates that the employer or the head of the work-related, educational or training environment or institution must provide the procedures for the resolution, settlement or prosecution of acts of sexual harassment. The employer must create a committee on decorum and investigation (CODI) of cases on sexual harassment.

In the case of a work-related environment, the committee shall be composed of at least one (1) representative each from the management, the union, if any, the employees from the supervisory rank, and from the rank and file employees.

In the case of the educational or training institution, the committee shall be composed of at least one (1) representative from the administration, the trainors, instructors, professors or coaches and students or trainees, as the case may be.

In Narvasa vs. Sanchez,

a senior bookkeeper filed a case for sexual harassment against the municipal assessor. In the said case, the respondent handed notes to the victim Gay, I like you., as well as text messages saying Ka date ko si Mary Gay ang tamis ng halik mo. , Pauwi ka na ba sexy?, I slept and dreamt nice things about you., Have a date with me., among others. He would also whisper to the victim Oy flawless, pumanaw ka met ditan while twice pinching her upper left arm near the shoulder in a slow manner. Furthermore, during a field trip, the respondent tried to kiss the victim. In such case, the Supreme Court held the respondent guilty of sexual harassment.

Commission of sexual harassment is a criminal offense. A person found guilty of sexual harassment shall 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.

Any person who directs or induces another to commit any act of sexual harassment, or who cooperates in the commission thereof by another without which it would not have been committed, shall also be held liable under for sexual harassment.

Damages resulting from sexual harassment may be separately and independently instituted.

In fact, the employer or head of office, educational or training institution shall be solidarily liable for damages 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.

The first case involved a Municipal Assessor of Diadi, Nueva Viscaya and 3 female subordinates who were subjected to a series of physical, verbal and other forms of sexual assaults. In TGN vs. BAS Jr. (GR 169449), the Supreme Court, En Banc,ordered on March 26, 2010, the dismissal of that assessor, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from holding any office in government and its corporations. The victims could also file criminal charges on top of the administrative complaint. The court even called him a perverted predator preying on his victim with unwelcome affections, in suchalarming frequency and increasing boldness.In PAAUC vs. RCC (GR 124617), the Supreme Court, onApril 28, 2000, awarded moral and exemplary damages in favor of a company nurse who, for 4 years, was subjected to all forms of sexual harassment, and later, verbal and psychological pressures for refusing to surrender her womanhood to the plant manager. Her dismissal was declared illegal and her resignation was deemed involuntary. The court was not moved by the companys argument that it took her 4 years to complain. Not many women, especially in this country, are made of stuff that can endure the agony and trauma of a corporate and public scandal. She was fighting a powerful man and she was alone, trying to defend her honor. And so, she stretched her patience until a critical incident took place.Sexual harassment is an imposition of a misplaced superiority that is enough to wreck a womans life, affect her sense of judgment and cause her irreparable pain. The court is more compassionate to the victim. However, if the victims story is incredible, and defies human logic, the court will not hesitate to exonerate the alleged offenders. In DTC vs. MS (GR166039), the SC dismissed a story of a very articulate and well-educated 40-year-old femaleDirector for Marketing Communications who accused her EVP and SVP of, among others, poking her sexual organ during a corporate party attended by no less than 60 company officials and guests. Interestingly, the one who penned this ruling is a woman, a no ordinary lady, former Supreme Court Justice Carpio-Morales, now Ombudsman. The problem of the victim here is that she waited for so long and did not explain her delay, unlike in the case of the harassed company nurse. But this case is a very exceptional one. In most cases, the victim always wins.Sexual harassment is not about just sex. Its about power. It isa blatant abuse of power. It is a betrayal of public trust, a breach of confidence, reprehensible, despicable and abominable. Lets all combat it.Freeman ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch:

In Domingo vs. Rayala,

a case involving a stenographer as the victim and the NLRC Chairman as the perpetrator, the Supreme Court enunciated that sexual harassment is an imposition of misplaced superiority which is enough to dampen an employees spirit and her capacity for advancement. It affects her sense of judgment; it changes her life. Thus, in holding and squeezing the victims 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 resound with deafening clarity the unspoken request for a sexual favor.