G.R. No. L-33131 - Republic vs. Avila

Complainant, Carrie-Anne Shaleen Carlyle S. Reyes, worked as an Administrative Aide on a Job Order basis at the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) since October 2004.
In January 2009, she was reassigned to the CAAP Office of the Board Secretary under the supervision of respondent, Atty. Ramon F. Nieva, then Acting Board Secretary.
During this period, complainant observed that respondent frequently watched "pampagana" videos on his office laptop, later identified as pornographic films.
Complainant alleged that respondent would hold and sometimes kiss her hand against her will, to which she protested and told him to desist.
Respondent offered complainant a cellular phone and load for private communication, which she refused.

On April 1, 2009, respondent texted complainant to wait in the office after hours. Fearing harm, complainant brought two officemates with her. Respondent told them to lock the door when leaving but did not act further.
On April 2, 2009, respondent contacted complainant by phone indicating he wanted to tell her something at work. Around 9:30 AM, while dictating a memorandum, respondent placed his hand on complainant’s waist near her breast and caressed her torso. Complainant moved away and admonished him.
Respondent then offered to give complainant P2,000 monthly from his pocket and gave her a note with a message implying confidentiality despite her mother’s presence at CAAP.
Later, around 11:00 AM, respondent closed the office door, grabbed complainant’s arm, said "let's seal it with a kiss," and attempted to kiss her. Complainant resisted, raised her voice, citing their respective marital statuses, and left for assistance.
Complainant’s supervisor advised her to file an administrative complaint against respondent with CAAP’s Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI).

Complainant was traumatized and, per psychiatric evaluation dated April 13, 2009, suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder with recurrent major depression attributed to the incident.
Complainant formally lodged a complaint for sexual harassment against respondent on March 3, 2010.

Respondent, a 79-year-old retiree engaged on a consultancy basis and Acting Board Secretary, denied all allegations as improbable given the small office space and presence of others.
He admitted watching "interesting shows" but claimed not to have invited anyone or kissed complainant’s hand, arguing such acts would have been witnessed.
He stated the offered phone was for official use, denied any inappropriate conduct, and cited dismissal of the administrative case filed before CODI for lack of basis.
Respondent further claimed complainant was manipulated by other employees aggrieved by reforms he implemented.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissal of the complaint, citing lack of corroboration and implausibility that sexual advances could occur unnoticed in the small office.
CODI investigation showed collective sworn statements of witnesses denying noticing misconduct.
The IBP Board of Governors reversed this, found respondent guilty of sexual advances, and recommended a three-month suspension.
On reconsideration, the IBP-CBD National Director recommended adherence to the original dismissal based on evidence, and the IBP Board subsequently dismissed the complaint.

The Supreme Court took up the case to determine respondent’s administrative liability for sexual harassment and violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Whether respondent, Atty. Ramon F. Nieva, is administratively liable for sexual harassment under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
What penalty, if any, should be imposed on respondent for his actions.
What is the applicable quantum of proof in administrative disciplinary proceedings against lawyers.