Re: People vs Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr.

Factual Background

An anonymous complaint alleged that respondent committed several acts of sexual harassment against students of Xavier University, Cagayan de Oro City. The complaint-affidavit of Antoinette Toyco recounted anonymous delivery of flowers, repeated text messages including romantic notes and poems, and an invitation to accompany respondent to Camiguin, which she declined; Toyco averred that she felt degraded and could not easily rebuff respondent for fear of reprisal. The affidavit of Christina Sagarbarria alleged that respondent first showed a photograph revealing only a woman’s face, then revealed the full photograph disclosing a naked woman and teased Sagarbarria within hearing distance of other students; Sagarbarria denied being the woman and stated the incident caused depression and prevented her participation in a moot court practice. The affidavit of Lea Dal alleged that during recitation respondent replied to her request to repeat a question with a crude sexual innuendo, which he later retold to other classes, causing embarrassment. Xavier University’s Committee on Decorum investigated and, in its September 5, 2002 Resolution, recommended nonrenewal of respondent’s teaching contract for violation of Xavier’s anti-sexual harassment guidelines.

Respondent’s Position

Respondent denied that his conduct amounted to sexual harassment and attributed the complaints to disgruntled students who failed his classes. He contended that Toyco had presented him gifts and that his text messages such as "luv u" and "miss u" were informal, friendly, and devoid of malice. He asserted that he confiscated the lewd photograph from another student and showed it to Sagarbarria jokingly, and that she, being his niece, had not been offended. He described the remark to Dal as a jocular admonition against slang, directed at himself to inject humor. Respondent maintained that none of the complainants manifested distress at the time and that the complaints surfaced collectively only years after the alleged incidents.

IBP Proceedings

Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag recommended suspension from the practice of law for two years in his January 19, 2009 Report and Recommendation, noting that respondent had opportunities to explain and reiterating the expectation that lawyers maintain good moral character. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) initially affirmed with modification and resolved to disbar respondent for gross immoral conduct in its April 16, 2010 Resolution. Respondent moved for reconsideration; in its January 27, 2017 Resolution the IBP-BOG partially granted reconsideration, reduced the penalty to suspension for two years, and directed the Commission on Bar Discipline to prepare an extended resolution. In the June 9, 2017 Extended Resolution, Director Ramon S. Esguerra concluded that respondent was not guilty under R.A. No. 7877 because there was no evidence of a categorical demand for sexual favors, but found respondent’s interactions unbecoming of a lawyer and recommended a two-year suspension to protect the public and the profession.

Issues Presented

The primary issues were whether respondent’s acts constituted sexual harassment under R.A. No. 7877 and related administrative standards applicable in an educational environment, and whether his conduct warranted disciplinary sanction for conduct unbecoming a lawyer under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Court found that respondent committed sexual harassment and abused his position as a law professor and member of the Bar. The Court modified the penalty recommended by the IBP-BOG and suspended Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr. from the practice of law for five (5) years and prohibited him from teaching law in any school for ten (10) years, both penalties to take effect upon finality of the Resolution, with a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely. The Court ordered dissemination of the Resolution to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court applied R.A. No. 7877 and held that education-related sexual harassment need not be predicated on an explicit, categorical demand for sexual favors; sexual harassment is also committed when the offender’s acts create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment. The Court relied on precedent, including Bacsin v. Wahiman and Domingo v. Rayala, and cited the Court’s statement in Philippine Aeolus Automotive United Corporation v. NLRC that the essence of sexual harassment is the abuse of power rather than a pure violation of sexuality. The Court considered CSC Resolution No. 01-0940 and its illustrative forms of sexual harassment, including verbal lurid remarks and the use of pictures with sexual underpinnings. The Court concluded that respondent’s conduct — publicly showing a lewd photograph to a student within earshot of others, sending unwelcome romantic texts, and making a crude sexual innuendo during recitation and repeating it to other classes — created a hostile and offensive environment and constituted sexual harassment as defined by statute and rules.

Professional-Responsibility Analysis

The Court stressed that lawyers are held to elevated standards of moral character and decorum as reflected in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 1.01, Canon 7, and Rule 7.03 were invoked to show that respondent’s behavior adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law and demeaned the legal profession. The Court cited authorities such as Arnobit v. Atty. Arnobit and related decisions to underscore that members of the Bar must be and appear to be of good moral character, and that conduct demonstrating deficiency in moral character or good demeanor may warrant suspension or disbarment. The Court found aggravating facts in respondent’s failure to acknowledge the harm inflicted and in his exercise of moral ascendancy over students, which inhibited their ability to object.

Findings as to Each Complainant

The Court found that respondent’s showing of a nude photograph to Sagarbarria in a public area and teasing her before other students caused real distress and depression