Case Summary (A.M. No. CTA-01-1)
Respondent’s Denials
Judge Acosta denied any malice or lascivious intent, characterizing each kiss as a customary “beso-beso” greeting on festive occasions (e.g., Christmas, New Year, Valentine’s Day, legislative milestone). He maintained phone calls were work-related, not solicitations of sexual favors, and noted transparent glass dividers precluded private advances. He apologized by note after the final incident.
Investigation and Procedural History
Pursuant to an En Banc resolution, the Supreme Court assigned Justice Salonga to investigate. After neither party offered further evidence, memoranda were submitted. Justice Salonga’s January 9 report recommended dismissal for lack of convincing proof that respondent’s kisses constituted sexual harassment under R.A. 7877 or violated judicial ethical standards, but advised a warning to avoid conduct that could be misconstrued.
Findings of Fact by Investigating Justice
- Most kissing incidents occurred in public or festive contexts.
- Complainant’s reaction in some cases (reciprocating greetings, joining lunch) was inconsistent with typical harassment responses.
- Witness affidavits lacked direct observation of any lewd or malicious act.
- Complainant failed to establish that any kiss was a demand or condition affecting her employment or working conditions.
- The “beso-beso” practice was corroborated by multiple non-biased witnesses as customary among CTA personnel.
Legal Analysis under R.A. No. 7877
To constitute work-related sexual harassment, three elements must coexist:
- An authority or moral ascendancy in a work environment.
- A demand, request, or requirement of a sexual favor.
- Resulting adverse employment consequences or creation of a hostile work environment.
Here, while respondent held supervisory authority, complainant did not prove that any kiss was demanded as a sexual favor, nor did she show discriminatory treatment, impaired job rights, or an intimidating environment. Casual greetings fall outside the Act’s prohibitions.
Supreme Court Decision and Disposition
The Supreme Court
Case Syllabus (A.M. No. CTA-01-1)
Facts
- Atty. Susan M. Aquino, Chief of the Legal and Technical Staff of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), filed an administrative complaint against Presiding Judge Ernesto D. Acosta under R.A. No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act) and for alleged breaches of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- Complainant alleged six separate incidents between November 2000 and February 2001 in which Judge Acosta greeted her with unsolicited kisses on the cheek in her office and chambers, sometimes after telephone invitations purportedly to discuss official matters.
- Detailed incidents:
• November 21, 2000 – After complainant returned from vacation with “pasalubong,” respondent entered her office, shook her hand, then pulled her close and kissed her on the cheek.
• December 28, 2000 – Despite being on official leave, respondent allegedly entered complainant’s office, embraced and kissed her; corroborated only by joint affidavit of two CTA tax specialists regarding his presence, not the embrace.
• Early January 2001 – Respondent summoned complainant to his chambers; upon arrival, allegedly attempted to kiss her, but she evaded him and resolved not to see him alone again.
• After Senate approval of the CTA expansion bill – In a group celebration, respondent reportedly wrapped his arm around complainant and kissed her amid festivities.
• February 14, 2001 – Respondent called her to his office; concerned, complainant brought clerk Ruby Lanuza as companion; respondent had left upon their arrival.
• February 15, 2001 – Complainant and Ruby Lanuza staged a chance meeting in respondent’s office; respondent allegedly attempted to kiss complainant, held her arms, and kissed her, prompting her to flee crying. A handwritten apology note (“sorry, it won’t happen again”) was later tossed into complainant’s office.
Respondent’s Denials and Explanations
- Judge Acosta denied all six allegations, offering alternative accounts:
• November 21 incident was a friendly “beso-beso” greeting for her gifts.
• December 28 visit did not occur; he was on leave (driver’s affidavit confirms).
• New Year’s Day office visit involved distributing calendars and greeting staff with customary pecks on the cheek.
• Senate celebration kiss was a s