Sexual harassment can happen to anyone and everyone, whenever and wherever. Most often than not, sexual harassment occurs at a workplace. By reason of this, an employer has the duty to prevent or deter the commission of acts of sexual harassment in the workplace. Otherwise, an employer may be held solidarily liable for damages arising thereto.

Under Section 3 of the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, or RA 7877, sexual harassment is committed by an employer, employee, or any other person who, having authority, influence, or moral ascendancy over another in a work environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether it is accepted.

Accordingly, an employer has the duty to prevent or deter the commission of acts of sexual harassment. In doing so, an employer must, nay, shall (a) provide procedures for the resolution, settlement, or prosecution of said acts and (b) create a committee on decorum and investigation of sexual harassment cases. The committee shall be comprised of at least one (1) representative each from the management, union, if any, employees from the supervisory rank, and the rank-and-file employees.

Failure of the employer to comply with the foregoing or to act with promptness and sensitivity on the report of sexual harassment makes an employer solidarily liable for damages arising from acts of sexual harassment committed in the employment.

To illustrate, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez (G.R. No. 268399), the Supreme Court upheld the solidary liability of an employer for unpaid salary and payment of damages resulting from sexual harassment for its failure to prevent the commission of acts of sexual harassment as well as its failure to provide procedures for the resolution or prosecution of the acts complained of.

In this case, the complainant was employed by Xerox Business Services Philippines, Inc. (Xerox Business). While the complainant was inside a storage room, her team leader suddenly appeared and uttered sexual remarks and demands towards her. Later that day, the complainant’s team leader, once more, made sexual advances towards the complainant: he approached her, grabbed her waist, hugged her, groped her breasts, and tried to kiss her when she hurriedly moved away; he forced himself on the complainant.

The complainant claimed that she reported the incident and filed a formal complaint with their Human Resources Department. To her great dismay, her case was never heard, management did not give her any protective measures, and her team leader even continued to work in the same area and on the same shift as her. Worse, the complainant alleged that Xerox Business withheld three days of her salary when she detested going to work.

Clearly, despite having been informed of the sexual harassment acts committed by one of its employees, Xerox Business, as the employer, failed to act upon said report immediately. Thus, as clearly provided under RA 7877, Xerox Business is solidarily liable to its erring employee for payment of moral damages in the amount of P100,000 and exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000 arising from the acts of sexual harassment.

Stated differently, Xerox Business’ mistake of failing to prevent the commission of acts of sexual harassment, as well as its failure to provide procedures for the resolution or prosecution of the acts complained of, should not be duplicated.

 

For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www.divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cad@divinalaw.com.