G.R. No. 257151 - Banco de Oro Universal Bank, Inc., Vivian Duldulao, and Christine Nakanishi vs. Liza A. Seastres and Annabelle N. Benaje

Frederick YaAez was a Supervisor of the Philippine Airlines (PAL) Passenger Handling Division.
On May 7, 2008, YaAez received a notice summarizing allegations by flight attendant Nova Sarte reporting that on May 6, 2008, during a ground stop before boarding, YaAez touched her inappropriately — inserting his hand in her right armpit, pressing her arm repeatedly, and touching the side of her breast.
Sarte claimed these were not isolated incidents and indicated prior inappropriate touching since her probationary period, including an intrusion into the lavatory where she was using the mirror.
YaAez denied these charges, stating he only tapped Sarte's shoulder twice after calling the attention of two flight attendants who did not respond.

On October 13, 2008, YaAez was formally charged with violating Article 51 of PAL's Revised Code of Discipline on Sexual Harassment.
PAL management, particularly Manager Melba Sainz, urged YaAez to apologize, which he refused.
PAL notified YaAez of the administrative hearing scheduled for October 27, 2008, in Pasay City; his request to transfer the hearing to Mactan, Cebu was denied.
The hearing proceeded in Pasay where Sarte presented her testimony; a second clarificatory hearing was scheduled in Cebu on December 4, 2008.
At the Cebu hearing, YaAez requested the transcript of the first hearing but was denied and subsequently refused to testify, walking out of the session.

The investigating committee found YaAez liable for sexual harassment under PAL's Revised Code of Discipline and recommended a three-month suspension.
Management adopted the committee's recommendation and issued a memo informing YaAez of the decision on June 4, 2009.

YaAez filed a complaint for illegal suspension seeking salary and moral damages.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in May 2010 that YaAez's suspension was valid and reasonable, after observing procedural due process despite YaAez's refusal to testify.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA's decision, noting the penalty was within management's prerogative after thorough investigation.
YaAez's motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was denied in October 2010.

YaAez appealed to the CA, which reversed NLRC's ruling in March 2013, holding that PAL failed to comply with procedural requirements under Republic Act (RA) No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995).
The CA found PAL did not have a duly created sexual harassment committee or rules and procedures prescribed by the law.
The CA noted the absence of proper service of the PAL Code of Discipline or the specific rules for administrative investigations in sexual harassment cases.
Consequently, the CA declared YaAez's suspension invalid and ordered PAL to pay salary and benefits.

PAL argued that it complied with due process and had implemented a sexual harassment policy consistent with RA 7877.
PAL asserted that YaAez was not deprived of the opportunity to defend himself and emphasized that the three-month suspension was justified.
The Supreme Court required comments from YaAez but waived them after several failed service attempts.

Whether PAL complied with the procedural and substantive requirements of RA No. 7877 in investigating and administratively penalizing YaAez for sexual harassment.
Whether YaAez was deprived of procedural due process in the administrative investigation and suspension.
Whether the three-month suspension imposed on YaAez was valid and reasonable under labor laws and company policies.