G.R. No. 248355 - Rivera vs. Woo Namsun

Petitioner Carlos G. Libres, an electrical engineer holding a managerial position as Assistant Manager at National Steel Corporation (NSC), was accused of sexual harassment.
The allegation involved improper physical contact with Susan D. Capiral, the secretary of Libres’ immediate superior, Assistant Vice President Isidro F. Hynson Jr., with the incident reportedly occurring in May 1992.

On August 3, 1993, Libres received a Notice of Investigation from Hynson Jr., which required him to submit a written explanation regarding the sexual harassment allegation; failure to respond would be taken as a waiver of his right to be heard.
Libres submitted his written explanation on August 14, 1993, in which he denied the charge and volunteered to undergo further clarificatory questioning.
An internal investigation was subsequently conducted by Hynson Jr., who convened a session where both Libres and Capiral were given the opportunity to present their versions of the events.

The MEC, after deliberation, concluded that Libres had committed unauthorized acts amounting to sexual harassment, citing behaviors such as touching a female subordinate’s hand and shoulder, caressing her nape, and making claims of reciprocal conduct.
The Committee based its decision on the violation of Item 2, Table V of the Plant’s Rules and Regulations and referenced guidelines from the Philippine Daily Inquirer Manual regarding the definition of sexual harassment.
The MEC recommended a disciplinary penalty of a 30-day suspension without pay for Libres.

On January 5, 1994, Libres formally requested reconsideration of his suspension by writing to the Vice President for Manufacturing, but his request was denied.
The suspension was ultimately implemented on February 12, 1994.
Libres then filed a complaint before a Labor Arbiter, contending that his suspension was illegal, unjustly discriminatory, and that his right to due process was violated due to the denial of a personal hearing with the MEC.

The Labor Arbiter found that due process had been observed. He noted that Libres had been given notice of the charges and the chance to present his side, and that the evidence, including Libres’ own admissions, corroborated the charge of sexual harassment.
The Arbiter emphasized that the MEC’s findings were supported by the testimonies and that there was consistency between the accounts despite minor factual discrepancies.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) upheld the Labor Arbiter’s decision, affirming the suspension and dismissing Libres’ contention that the investigation process was procedurally deficient.

Whether Libres’ conduct constituted sexual harassment under the standards set by the company’s rules and general societal understanding.

The issue centers on the interpretation of actions such as fondling and touching, and whether these acts met the criteria for sexual harassment as defined by the MEC and common connotations.
The adequacy of the evidence supporting the allegation and the correct application of internal disciplinary rules were questioned.

Whether the petitioner was deprived of his right to due process during the internal investigation and subsequent administrative proceedings.

Libres contended that his opportunity to be heard was curtailed by the MEC’s refusal to allow personal confrontation or further clarificatory questioning.
The issue includes whether the steps taken (i.e., issuing a Notice of Investigation and accepting a written explanation) were sufficient to satisfy due process requirements.

The applicability of Republic Act No. 7877 in evaluating the charge of sexual harassment.

Libres argued that the NLRC erred by not applying RA 7877, which defines sexual harassment in the employment context.
The issue also examines whether RA 7877, not yet in effect at the time of the incident, could be retroactively applied to justify the disciplinary action.

The relevance and appropriateness of relying on jurisprudence such as Villarama v. NLRC and Golden Donuts in determining the appropriate penalty for acts of sexual harassment.

The petitioner questioned the comparability of his case to Villarama, highlighting differences in the timing of the filing of complaints.
Whether such precedents should influence the determination of both the nature of the offense and the severity of the penalty was a critical issue.