Case Summary (A.M. No. P-08-2576)
Petitioner’s Allegations and Factual Background
– December 5, 2005: At a drinking session in Judge Dimaano’s chambers, Ivie observed colleagues laughing while Raul stood behind her; later received text from Raul admitting he “kissed her hair twice.”
– December 15, 2005 & January 2006: Social outings with Raul and other court employees; Ivie texted Raul to cease advances, but he persisted, confessing feelings and threatening to retaliate if she spoke.
– February 24, 2006: Using an official vehicle, a group including Ivie and Raul visited Sheriff Floresil’s house; a celebratory gathering at RTC Branch 94 followed, with photographs depicting drinking and karaoke.
– September 1 & 22, 2006: Ivie brought again to Sheriff Floresil’s residence with Raul.
– July 27–28, 2007: Ivie showed Alejandro threatening, defamatory text messages, allegedly from Anafe Tomanan in Saudi Arabia.
– August 23, 2007: Alejandro confronted Raul on the street, resulting in a fistfight and subsequent complaints for physical injuries and libel (against Anafe).
– October 2007: Raul returned from study leave accompanied by a bodyguard; sent intimidating messages to Ivie and Alejandro; attempted to deter Alejandro from entering RTC premises on October 15.
– Internal tensions also alleged among employees (Rowel and Conchitina’s purported affair; Marilyn and Juris’s marital discord). Ivie eventually agreed to transfer to MTC Gasan to avoid Raul.
Respondent’s Counter-Affidavit and Supporting Statements
– Raul denied all romantic involvement with Ivie, refuted that his wife sent text messages, claimed any drinking session was Ivie’s personal birthday celebration with Judge Dimaano’s permission, and denied visiting Sheriff Floresil’s house with Ivie.
– Submitted sworn statements of ten RTC employees who uniformly denied sexual advances, illicit affairs among co-employees, or unauthorized use of vehicles; they characterized events as innocuous birthday gatherings with judicial approval.
Procedural History
– November 12, 2008: Supreme Court re-docketed the complaint as a regular administrative matter; referred to Executive Judge for investigation.
– April 21, 2009: Investigating Judge Caballes issued a partial report noting the prohibition on drinking in court premises and recommending individual affidavits to explain photographs.
– January 2009: Ivie filed counter-affidavit; motions for inhibition and preventive suspension were denied July 8, 2009.
– Excessive delay prompted Court Administrator’s letter (2015); final Report/Recommendation submitted February 11, 2016, by Executive Judge Magturo.
– Judge Caballes recommended dismissal of charges against Raul and Ivie.
– December 29, 2016: Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) memorandum recommended finding Raul guilty of grave misconduct (sexual harassment, immorality, conduct unbecoming) and imposing dismissal with disqualifications.
Applicable Law
– 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 11: Administrative supervision and discipline of courts and personnel.
– A.M. No. 03-03-13-SC (Rule on Administrative Procedure in Sexual Harassment Cases; Guidelines on Proper Work Decorum in the Judiciary).
– A.C. No. 1-99: Prohibits drinking alcoholic beverages within court premises.
– CSC Resolution No. 01-0940 (Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases): Classifications and penalties for sexual harassment.
– Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS): Penalties for simple misconduct.
Issue
Whether respondent Raul T. Tomanan is administratively liable for sexual harassment, immorality, and conduct unbecoming of a court employee.
Ruling on Sexual Harassment and Immorality
– Definition: “Work-related sexual harassment” includes unwelcome physical, verbal, and other acts that create a hostile work environment.
– Unwelcome Hair-Kissing: Qualifies as unwanted touching → less grave offense (CSC Res. 01-0940, Sec. 53[B][1]).
– Persistent Advances: Unwelcome sexual flirtation → light offense (CSC Res. 01-0940, Sec. 53[C][6]).
– Credibility: Petitioner’s candid, consistent account deemed more credible than respondent’s general denials; photograph shows inappropriate proximity.
– Immorality: Engaging in relations outside marriage by a judicial employee is disgraceful; creates hostile work en
Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-08-2576)
Facts of the Case
- Alejandro BuAag filed an administrative complaint against Raul T. Tomanan, Legal Researcher and Officer-in-Charge, Clerk of Court, RTC Branch 94, Marinduque, for grave misconduct, sexual harassment, grave abuse of authority, conduct unbecoming of court employees, and immorality.
- Ivie S. BuAag, Court Stenographer III (Alejandro’s wife), narrated multiple incidents of unwanted advances and alleged impropriety by Raul spanning December 2005 to October 2007.
- Photographs and text messages formed part of the evidence, including instances of drinking inside judicial chambers and personal celebrations held in court premises.
- Following complaints and counter-complaints, a fistfight ensued on August 23, 2007, leading to parallel criminal actions for physical injuries and libel.
Chronology of Alleged Acts
- December 5, 2005: During a drinking session inside Judge Dimaano’s chambers, Raul kissed Ivie’s hair twice without consent.
- December 15, 2005: Group outing at Sunset Beach Resort; later, Ivie texted Raul to cease the advances.
- January 2006: Raul confessed feelings and refused to end improper courtship, warning of office gossip.
- February 24, 2006: Celebration at Sheriff Floresil Fernandez’s house and later at RTC Branch 94; photographs show court employees drinking and singing karaoke.
- September 1 & 22, 2006: Additional visits to Sheriff Floresil’s home with Raul present.
- July–August 2007: Ivie and Alejandro received derogatory and threatening text messages, allegedly from Raul’s wife.
- August 23, 2007: Confrontation and fistfight between Alejandro and Raul on the street; subsequent complaints filed.
- October 2007: Study leave return, bodyguard surveillance of Ivie, attempts to provoke Alejandro to the court premises, and an office commotion involving other employees.
Respondent’s Counter-Affidavit and Defense
- Raul denied any romantic or improper conduct toward Ivie and contested all material allegations:
• Denied text messages from Anafe Tomanan;
• Claimed Alejandro instigated the physical fight;
• Asserted Ivie herself requested transfer to MTC;
• Disavowed any drinking session in Judge’s ch