Case Summary (A.M. No. CTA-01-1)
Factual Background
ATTY. SUSAN M. AQUINO, COMPLAINANT, alleged six separate incidents in which she said HON. ERNESTO D. ACOSTA, RESPONDENT, kissed her and made sexual advances. On November 21, 2000, after returning from travel to the United States with pasalubongs, she alleged that respondent entered her office, shook her hand and abruptly pulled her close to kiss her on the cheek. On December 28, 2000 she alleged a similar embrace and kiss after respondent entered her office while he claimed to be on official leave. On the first working day of January 2001 she alleged an attempted kiss in respondent’s chambers and resolved thereafter not to meet him alone. Weeks later, during festivities following Senate approval of a bill expanding the CTA’s jurisdiction, she alleged that respondent placed his arms around her shoulders and kissed her in the presence of others. On February 14, 2001 respondent telephoned to ask to see her but left before she and an accompanying clerk entered his chambers. On February 15, 2001 she alleged that respondent, after arranging a meeting and while a clerk, Ruby Lanuza, was positioned nearby, told her in Filipino, “me gusto akong gawin sa iyo kahapon pa,” grabbed and held her arms, pulled her toward him and kissed her; she pushed him away, left in tears and later found a handwritten note from respondent saying, “sorry, it won’t happen again.” The complainant submitted joint affidavits of CTA personnel Ma. Imelda C. Samonte and Anne Benita M. Santos and other documentary exhibits to support her account.
Respondent’s Account and Denials
HON. ERNESTO D. ACOSTA, RESPONDENT, denied that he sexually harassed ATTY. SUSAN M. AQUINO, COMPLAINANT, and insisted that his conduct consisted of casual greetings and customary “beso-beso” pecks on the cheek on festive occasions. He explained each episode as follows: the November 21 encounter was unlikely because the complainant had brought pasalubongs; the December 28 occurrence could not have happened because he was on official leave; the New Year’s greeting involved a casual buss and a calendar which complainant reciprocated; the post-Senate celebration peck occurred in jubilation and in the presence of others and was reciprocated by complainant, who thereafter joined him for lunch; the February 14 call concerned discussion of a CTA health plan, a fact corroborated by a certification of an HR officer; and the February 15 episode resulted from a casual attempt to peck the complainant on the cheek, followed by an apology note when she appeared offended. He further pointed to the transparent-glass structure of his office and to witnesses who attested to customary beso-beso greetings at the CTA.
Procedural History and Investigation
Pursuant to this Court’s Resolution of August 21, 2001, the case was referred to Justice Josefina G. Salonga of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation. A hearing was set for November 6, 2001; the parties, through counsel, declined to adduce further evidence and were ordered on November 7, 2001 to submit memoranda, after which the case would be submitted. Justice Salonga forwarded her Report on Investigation and Recommendation to the Court on January 9, 2002. The Supreme Court en banc rendered its Decision on December 8, 2003.
Findings of the Investigating Justice
Justice Salonga found for the respondent and recommended dismissal of the administrative complaint. The Investigating Justice reasoned that the complainant failed to prove by convincing evidence that the kisses were motivated by lustful or lascivious desires or malice. The Report emphasized that most kissing incidents occurred on festive occasions and were corroborated by witnesses who described customary beso-beso greetings among CTA personnel. The Report discounted certain affidavits for lack of direct observation or probative value, noted that complainant had reciprocated greetings and had shared meals and nocturnal trips to the CTA with respondent, and found that a witness, Ruby Lanuza, appeared biased and did not attest to witnessing sexual advances. The Investigating Justice concluded that no demand, request or requirement of sexual favors had been established and recommended that respondent be exonerated but warned to refrain from conduct that could be construed as lustful advances.
Supreme Court’s Review and Holding
The Supreme Court agreed with the Investigating Justice and held that the records lacked convincing evidence of sexual harassment under R.A. 7877 or of violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court observed that administrative complaints against members of the judiciary warrant cautious handling because of their effect on individual reputations and on the integrity of the judiciary. The Court found that respondent’s acts were casual gestures of friendship and camaraderie without indicia of malice or lewd design, and that the complainant misconstrued those acts as constituting work-related sexual harassment under R.A. 7877.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court analyzed Section 3 (a) of R.A. 7877, which defines work-related sexual harassment and requires, among other things, that a person having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a worki
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (A.M. No. CTA-01-1)
Parties and Posture
- Atty. Susan M. Aquino filed an administrative complaint alleging sexual harassment and violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Professional Responsibility against Hon. Ernesto D. Acosta, Presiding Judge of the Court of Tax Appeals.
- The complaint accused Respondent of six separate instances of unwanted physical contact, including kisses on the cheek and a forcible kiss.
- This Court referred the matter to Justice Josefina G. Salonga of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation pursuant to an August 21, 2001 resolution.
- Justice Salonga conducted proceedings and, after receiving memoranda, submitted a Report on Investigation and Recommendation on January 9, 2002.
- The administrative case came before the Supreme Court for final determination on the charge of sexual harassment under R.A. No. 7877 and related ethical rules.
Factual Allegations
- Complainant alleged that on November 21, 2000, Respondent entered her office, shook her hand and unexpectedly kissed her on the cheek after she presented him with pasalubong.
- Complainant alleged that on December 28, 2000, Respondent entered her office while on official leave, embraced her and kissed her, and that witnesses attested to his presence on that floor that day.
- Complainant alleged that on the first working day of January 2001 Respondent attempted to kiss her in his chambers, causing her to avoid meeting him alone thereafter.
- Complainant alleged that upon Senate approval of the CTA expansion bill Respondent unexpectedly wrapped his arms around her and kissed her in a jubilation setting.
- Complainant alleged that on February 14, 2001 Respondent called her to his office and that she brought a companion who found Respondent absent.
- Complainant alleged that on February 15, 2001 Respondent called her, summoned her to his office, uttered "me gusto akong gawin sa iyo kahapon pa," forcibly held her arms, pulled her toward him and kissed her, after which he left a written note saying, "sorry, it wont happen again."
Respondent's Version
- Hon. Ernesto D. Acosta denied sexual harassment and maintained that he always treated complainant with respect as head of the CTA Legal Staff.
- Respondent explained the November 21, 2000 act as a friendly greeting tied to the giving of pasalubong and denied any improper intent.
- Respondent asserted he was on official leave December 26–29, 2000, and thus disputed the December 28 allegation, a claim supported by his driver Ricardo Hebia in an affidavit.
- Respondent described the January incidents and the jubilation kiss as spontaneous festive pecks in the presence of others and denied any hostile or lewd intent.
- Respondent explained the February 14 meeting as a legitimate discussion concerning the CTA Health Plan and produced a Certification corroborating that meeting.
- Respondent characterized the February 15 contact as an attempted casual buss on the cheek which complainant misinterpreted, and stated that he held her arms only to prevent her from falling, after which he apologized by note.