Case Digest (A.C. No. 5900) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In A.C. No. 5900, an anonymous complaint dated May 14, 2002 was filed against Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr. (respondent), a law professor at Xavier University, Cagayan de Oro City, alleging that he sexually harassed three female students: Antoinette Toyco, Christina Sagarbarria, and Lea Dal. The complaint detailed that respondent sent anonymous flowers and romantic text messages to Toyco, showed Sagarbarria a partial photograph that turned out to be a naked woman in public view, and made a lewd innuendo at Dal during class by referring to his own delayed “come again” in response to her request to repeat a question. The Committee on Decorum and Investigation of Xavier, in its September 5, 2002 resolution, found respondent guilty of violating the university’s anti-sexual harassment policy and recommended non-renewal of his teaching contract. Respondent denied malicious intent, contending that his messages were friendly, that Sagarbarria was his niece, and that his classroom jo Case Digest (A.C. No. 5900) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Origin of Complaint
- On May 14, 2002, an anonymous “law practitioner” filed a complaint against Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr. (respondent), alleging sexual harassment of Xavier University law students Antoinette Toyco, Christina Sagarbarria and Lea Dal.
- By September 26, 2002, the complainant submitted affidavits of the three students and a Resolution of Xavier’s Committee on Decorum and Investigation.
- Allegations of the Students
- Toyco alleged unwelcome advances: anonymous flowers, romantic text messages (“luv u,” “miss u”) and an invitation to Camiguin, causing her distress and fear of reprisal.
- Sagarbarria recounted that respondent first showed her a cropped photo then the full image of a naked woman, teasing her before other students; she suffered depression and could not complete a moot court practice.
- Dal related that during recitation, her “come again?” request prompted respondent’s crude sexual innuendo—“it took me five minutes to come, don’t you know?”—retold in other classes, causing her humiliation.
- Institutional and Disciplinary Proceedings
- Xavier University’s Committee on Decorum (Sept. 5, 2002) found respondent violative of anti-sexual harassment rules and recommended non-renewal of his teaching contract.
- The Integrated Bar of the Philippines: Commissioner Hababag (Jan. 19, 2009) recommended a two-year suspension; IBP-BOG (Apr. 16, 2010) initially disbarred respondent, later reduced to two-year suspension on reconsideration (Jan. 27, 2017). The Commission on Bar Discipline then found no statutory sexual harassment but unbecoming conduct meriting two-year suspension.
- The Supreme Court took cognizance of these findings and reviewed the appropriate sanction.
Issues:
- Whether respondent’s conduct constitutes sexual harassment under Republic Act No. 7877 and related administrative rules.
- Whether respondent’s actions also amount to misconduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from law practice and teaching, and what penalty is appropriate.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)