Facts:

The administrative case titled A.M. No. CTA-01-1 originated from a sworn affidavit-complaint lodged by Atty. Susan M. Aquino against Judge Ernesto D. Acosta, the Presiding Judge of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), on April 2, 2002. The complaint alleged multiple instances of sexual harassment by Judge Acosta under Republic Act No. 7877, which defines and penalizes sexual harassment in the workplace, as well as violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Aquino, who served as the Chief of the Legal and Technical Staff of the CTA, recounted various occasions in which Judge Acosta made unwelcome physical advances towards her, mostly involving unwanted kisses. The first incident occurred on November 21, 2000, shortly after Atty. Aquino returned from a trip to the United States. Upon entering her office, Judge Acosta allegedly pulled her closer and kissed her cheek. Further incidents followed, including a phone call from Judge Acosta

...

Facts:

Parties and Background

• Complainant: Atty. Susan M. Aquino, Chief of the Legal and Technical Staff of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA).
• Respondent: Judge Ernesto D. Acosta, Presiding Judge of the CTA.
• Nature of the Case: An administrative complaint was filed by Atty. Aquino alleging sexual harassment and violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Professional Responsibility against Judge Acosta.

Chronology and Description of Incidents

• November 21, 2000 Incident
• Atty. Aquino reported for work after returning from a vacation in the United States and brought gifts (pasalubongs) for the CTA judges, including Judge Acosta.
• In the afternoon, after greeting her with a handshake, Judge Acosta unexpectedly pulled her toward him and kissed her on the cheek.
• December 28, 2000 Incident
• While Judge Acosta was on official leave, he called Atty. Aquino by phone indicating he would visit her office.
• He entered her room, exchanged a handshake, and greeted her with “Merry Christmas” before embracing and kissing her. Atty. Aquino managed to push him away.
• The visit was corroborated by a joint affidavit of two CTA Tax Specialists.
• Early January 2001 Incident
• On the first working day of January 2001, Judge Acosta phoned Atty. Aquino, requesting a meeting in his chambers to discuss certain matters.
• When she arrived, he attempted to kiss her again, but she evaded his advances and subsequently resolved not to meet him alone in his chambers.
• Post-Senate Approval Incident (Weeks Later)
• After the Senate approved the proposed bill expanding the jurisdiction of the CTA, Atty. Aquino and her companions were celebrating.
• In the midst of the festivities, Judge Acosta spontaneously placed his arms around her shoulders and kissed her on the cheek.
• This action was presented as a celebratory gesture, with Atty. Aquino even remarking, “justice ka na judge,” in response.
• February 14, 2001 Incident
• On the morning of February 14, 2001, Judge Acosta called Atty. Aquino, asking her to come to his office.
• Concerned about potential implications, Atty. Aquino requested the company of Ruby Lanuza, a Records Section clerk.
• By the time they reached his chambers, Judge Acosta had already left.
• February 15, 2001 Incident
• At approximately 8:30 a.m. on the following day, Judge Acosta again called Atty. Aquino to discuss the Senate bill.
• Atty. Aquino, once more accompanied by Ruby Lanuza (who conspired with her by pretending to meet accidentally at his office), encountered Judge Acosta.
• In the office, while ostensibly discussing matters related to the Senate bill, Judge Acosta remarked in Tagalog, “ame gusto akong gawin sa iyo kahapon pa,” and then proceeded to grab her, pulling her toward him and kissing her on the cheek.
• Atty. Aquino instinctively raised her hands to defend herself, causing her to tremble and eventually leave in tears; she later locked herself in a comfort room.
• Following this incident, Judge Acosta went to her office and left an apology note stating, “sorry, it won’t happen again.”

Respondent’s Defense and Explanations

• Judge Acosta denied the allegations of sexual harassment, asserting that all his actions were in the nature of friendly greetings.
• For each incident, he offered explanations:
• The first incident was dismissed as a misinterpretation since Atty. Aquino had brought gifts as a form of pasalubong.
• He maintained he was on official leave during the December 28 incident, supported by an affidavit from his driver.
• The January incident was explained as part of general greetings extended to all personnel.
• The celebratory kiss after the Senate bill approval was described as a spontaneous peck in a festive mood, which was even reciprocated by Atty. Aquino.
• The February incidents were presented as business-related meetings where gestures of greeting (such as a casual buss) occurred without any malice.
• Judge Acosta further argued that his office’s structure (divider of transparent glass) would have prevented any covert improper conduct.

Investigation and Proceedings

• The administrative case was referred to Justice Josefina G. Salonga of the Court of Appeals for investigation.
• Justice Salonga set and held a hearing on November 6, 2001, and directed both parties to submit their memoranda simultaneously.
• On January 9, 2002, Justice Salonga forwarded her Report on Investigation and Recommendation, which favored the respondent.
• The report found that the alleged acts did not satisfy the elements of sexual harassment under R.A. 7877.
• The record indicated that Atty. Aquino’s allegations were not supported by convincing evidence, and her depiction of events was colored by misinterpretation of customary, friendly gestures.

Issue:

Determination of Sexual Harassment

• Whether Judge Acosta’s acts of greeting by kissing on the cheek constituted sexual harassment under R.A. 7877.
• Whether his actions were motivated by malice, lust, or any improper intent versus innocent, customary behavior.

Evaluation of the Evidence

• Whether the evidence provided by Atty. Aquino, including her affidavit and the testimonies of witnesses, established a hostile or intimidating work environment.
• Whether the corroborative evidence and affidavits from other personnel undermine the complainant’s claim of sexual harassment.

Proper Application of Legal Standards

• Whether the elements required for a sexual favor or harassment—such as abuse of authority, request for a sexual favor, and creation of an oppressive or discriminatory work environment—are met in this case.
• Whether the gestures carried out in festive or celebratory contexts can be legally construed as sexual harassment.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)