Jose Sison

Grave misconduct A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) | Updated July 1, 2015 - 12:00am Sexually molesting or harassing a person in an employment, education and training environment is unlawful pursuant to R.A. 7877 which was passed on March 5, 1995. This case of Atty. Pabling explains how this law is violated. Atty. Pabling was the chief of the legal division of a government agency. One of the new lawyers working under him was Atty. Leila, an attractive young lady who was recommended by his Administrative Officer Ms. Lisa. From the very first day of work, Leila already caught the attention of Pabling. He even offered to buy her a cell phone so that he could text her but Leila curtly refused. On that same day after office, he wanted her to join him in his car in going home but she likewise refused. Then one week later, Pabling asked Leila to eat out for lunch but she refused once more. In the course of Leila’s employment with Pabling as her supervisor, the latter often made sexual advances and gestures but she still tried to keep their relationship on a strictly professional level. So later on after her sick leave from office the exasperated Pabling called her in his office, scolded her and uttered several unsavory, untruthful and threatening remarks to the extent of telling Leila, “ayoko na sa iyo,….. at ngayong ayoko na sa iyo alam mo naman kung sino ako dito, kaya ano ang gagawin natin ngayon. But the incident that really prompted Leila to file an administrative complaint against Pabling happened three months later during her birthday when Pabling invited her and other staff members, Ms. Lisa, Atty Juan and stenographer, Romy, to eat lunch at a nearby restaurant. While already seated at the table waiting for their food to be served, Pabling suddenly took hold of Leila’s face and forcefully kissed her lips in the presence of Lisa, Juan and Romy and other customers. Leila tried to ward off Pabling by pulling her head away but he persisted on kissing her against her will. Leila was so shocked and 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, Pabling said, “ang sarap pala ng labi ni Leila.” Then Pabling held her hand and said “Leila sige na. But Leila took away her hand and thereafter reported the incident to the executive director of the agency. To support her complaint affidavit and to corroborate her account, Leila also submitted the joint affidavit of her officemates, Ms. Lisa, Atty. Juan and Romy who witnessed the entire kissing incident. Considering the long inaction of the government agency on her complaint, Leila was constrained to elevate her case before the Office of the Ombudsman. In his counter affidavit Pabling claimed that he treated his staff to lunch upon their own prodding as it was Leila’s birthday and she had no money for a “blowout”. And while their group was talking in the restaurant, he greeted Leila and simply planted an innocent birthday greeting kiss on her left cheek, near her lips. He said that he often summoned Leila to his office to explain her frequent tardiness and absences which was part of his function as legal counsel of the office. In her reply affidavit, Leila countered that she never solicited any favor from Pabling let alone obligated him to spend money for her birthday “blowout” and that the lunch treat was part of a premeditated evil plan by Pabling to have her submit to his sexual desire. After proper investigation, the Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause to charge Atty. Pabling with “sexual harassment” punishable under R.A. 7877 and recommended the filing of the necessary Information before the Metropolitan Trial Court. It also found him administratively guilty of grave misconduct with the penalty of dismissal from the service. This ruling was later on affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Was the CA correct? Yes. Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. The misconduct is considered grave if there is corruption or willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules. In this case, corruption is present because Atty. Pabling used his position and authority as head of the legal division, as well as his moral ascendancy, to elicit sexual favors from Leila and to indulge in sexually malicious acts with his female subordinate. His sole defense that he merely gave Leila an innocent birthday greeting kiss is unconvincing in view of the Joint Affidvit of their officemates attesting that he forcibly kissed her lips and uttered “Ang sarap pala ng labi ni Leila”. His act of grabbing Leila and kissing her without her consent is an unmistakable manifestation of his intention to violate R.A. 7877. Even assuming for the sake of argument that

Documents

Jose Sison