Case Digest (G.R. No. 175433)
Facts:
In G.R. No. 175433, Atty. Jacinto C. Gonzales (petitioner), then Chief of the Legal Division of the Philippine Racing Commission, was accused by his subordinate, Atty. Maila Clemen F. Serrano (respondent), of grave misconduct, sexual harassment, and acts of lasciviousness. On November 23, 2000, at Buddy’s Restaurant in Makati City, petitioner allegedly forcefully kissed respondent on the lips in the presence of three officemates—Eva Bataller, Eugene Juanson, and Roman Vidal—despite her attempts to pull away. Respondent formally filed her Complaint-Affidavit on January 12, 2001, recounting prior unwanted advances by petitioner, including offers to buy her a cell phone, requests for rides, lunch invitations, and demeaning remarks upon her return from sick leave. After reporting the incident to Executive Director Juan Lozano, respondent was terminated on January 19, 2001. The Commission on Human Rights, in a resolution dated May 8, 2001, found probable cause for sexual harassment aCase Digest (G.R. No. 175433)
Facts:
- Parties and Alleged Misconduct
- Atty. Jacinto C. Gonzales (petitioner), Chief, Legal Division, Philippine Racing Commission (PHILRACOM).
- Atty. Maila Clemen F. Serrano (respondent), subordinate and complainant.
- Allegations and Complaint
- On November 23, 2000, during a group lunch at Buddy’s Restaurant, petitioner forcibly held respondent’s face and kissed her on the lips against her will, witnessed by officemates.
- Petitioner allegedly made prior sexual advances on four occasions, including offers to buy a cell phone, invitations to ride home in his car, lunch invitations, and derogatory remarks upon her return from sick leave.
- Respondent reported the incident to PHILRACOM Executive Director Juan Lozano and filed an administrative complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman for grave misconduct, sexual harassment, and acts of lasciviousness.
- Procedural History
- Office of the Ombudsman Administrative Adjudication Bureau (OMB-AAB) Decision (March 19, 2002): found petitioner guilty of grave misconduct; imposed dismissal.
- OMB-AAB denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (September 9, 2002).
- Overall Deputy Ombudsman memorandum (January 3, 2003) and order (February 11, 2003): modified the infraction from grave to simple misconduct and reduced penalty to one‐month suspension.
- Respondent’s Rule 65 petition before the Court of Appeals (CA) (CA G.R. SP No. 76959): CA reversed the Overall Deputy Ombudsman’s orders and reinstated the OMB-AAB decision (August 16, 2006); denied petitioner’s motion for extension to file a motion for reconsideration (October 4, 2006).
- Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari (filed February 2007).
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in setting aside the Overall Deputy Ombudsman’s January 3 and February 11, 2003 orders modifying the finding of grave misconduct to simple misconduct and reducing the penalty from dismissal to one‐month suspension.
- Whether the Court of Appeals committed error in denying petitioner’s urgent motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)