Case Digest (G.R. No. L-52413)
Facts:
Jose Romeo C. Escandor v. Hon. Conchita Carpio Morales, Sec. Emmanuel F. Esguerra and Cindy Sheila C. Gamallo, G.R. No. 223743, August 17, 2022, Supreme Court Third Division, Dimaampao, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Jose Romeo C. Escandor was then the Regional Director of the National Economic and Development Authority, Regional Office No. 7 (NEDA 7). Private respondent Cindy Sheila C. Gamallo was a contractual employee assigned to the UNICEF-assisted CPC V project under NEDA 7’s Social Development Division. Gamallo alleged a series of unwanted sexual advances and other harassing acts by petitioner beginning in 1999 and continuing through 2003, including inappropriate comments, unwelcome touching (hand-grabbing; a touch to her thigh), hugging and kissing on the forehead, advances during meetings and seminars, persistent text/instant messages, gifts, and attempts to force her into compromising situations. She reported emotional distress and impairment in work performance, and she resigned in November 2003.
On September 23, 2004, Gamallo filed a complaint under Republic Act No. 7877 (the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995) with the Office of the Ombudsman–Visayas (OMB-Visayas). After administrative proceedings—during which petitioner filed pleadings including a counter-affidavit, rejoinder and position paper—the OMB-Visayas rendered a Decision dated March 21, 2007 finding petitioner guilty of grave misconduct for sexual harassment and meting the penalty of dismissal from service. The OMB-Visayas denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by Order dated September 17, 2007 and issued an order directing immediate implementation of the dismissal.
Petitioner sought relief with the Court of Appeals by a petition under Rule 43; the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 03304 dismissed the petition and affirmed the OMB-Visayas Decision in a decision dated December 23, 2014. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated February 22, 2016. Petitioner then filed the present Petition for Review ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Office of the Ombudsman have jurisdiction to hear and decide the sexual harassment complaint filed by Gamallo against petitioner?
- Was petitioner denied due process in the OMB administrative proceedings?
- Are the Ombudsman’s and Court of Appeals’ findings that petitioner committed sexual harassment (amounting to grave misconduct) supported by substantial evidence and not barr...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)