Case Digest (A.M. No. CTA-01-1)
Facts:
Atty. Susan M. Aquino v. Hon. Ernesto D. Acosta, Presiding Judge, Court of Tax Appeals, A.M. No. CTA-01-1, April 02, 2002; decided December 8, 2003, Supreme Court En Banc, Sandoval‑Gutierrez, J., writing for the Court. The administrative complaint was filed originally with the Supreme Court; it arose from a sworn affidavit‑complaint by Atty. Susan M. Aquino, Chief of the Legal and Technical Staff of the Court of Tax Appeals (complainant), accusing Judge Ernesto D. Acosta, Presiding Judge of the CTA (respondent), of sexual harassment under R.A. No. 7877 and of violating the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Professional Responsibility.Complainant recounted six specific episodes between November 2000 and February 2001 in which respondent allegedly kissed her on the cheek, embraced her, attempted to kiss her, or physically grabbed her. Key dates and events alleged: on November 21, 2000, respondent allegedly kissed her on the cheek after she returned from the United States with pasalubong; on December 28, 2000 he allegedly entered her office, embraced and kissed her; on the first working day of January 2001 he allegedly attempted to kiss her in his chambers; weeks later, after the Senate approved a bill expanding CTA jurisdiction, he allegedly placed his arms around her shoulders and kissed her in a celebratory context; on February 14, 2001 respondent allegedly called her to his office but left before she arrived; and on February 15, 2001 she alleged a forcible grabbing and kissing in respondent’s office followed by a handwritten apology note.
Respondent denied the allegations, offering explanations that the gestures were casual, friendly “beso‑beso” greetings on festive occasions, that some dates coincided with his official leave, and that some meetings were for work‑related matters (e.g., CTA health plan discussions). He and several witnesses asserted that pecks on the cheek were customary in the CTA on certain occasions and that complainant herself reciprocated greetings or continued normal work relations after the incidents.
By Resolution dated August 21, 2001, the Supreme Court referred the complaint to Justice Josefina G. Salonga of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation. Justice Salonga scheduled a hearing for November 6, 2001; the parties declined to adduce further evidence and submitted memoranda. On January 9, 2002, Justice Salonga submitted a Report finding for respondent: she concluded that the complainant failed to prove by convincing evidence that respondent acted with lustful or lascivious intent or that his conduct amounted to sexual h...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did complainant prove by convincing evidence that respondent committed work‑related sexual harassment under R.A. No. 7877?
- Did respondent’s alleged acts constitute violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Professional Responsibility?
- If not, what administrative disp...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)