1. 1
Republic Act No. 7877
Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of
1995
ATTY. HAROLD P. ESTACIO
LECTURER/PROCTOR
2. I. Rationale of the Law
II. Definition of Terms
III.Prohibited Acts
IV.Duties of the Head of Office
V. Liability
VI. Penalty
VII. Jurisprudence on RA 7877
2
11. 1
III. PHOHIBITED ACTS
In a work-related or employment environment,
sexual harassment is committed when:
1. The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the
employment, re-employment or continued employment of said
individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation,
terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to
grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or
classifying the employee which in any way would discriminate,
deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect said employee.
12. 1
III. PHOHIBITED ACTS
In a work-related or employment environment,
sexual harassment is committed when:
2. The above acts would impair the employee’s rights
or privileges under existing labor laws; or
3. The above acts would result in an intimidating,
hostile, or offensive environment for the employee.
13. 1
III. PHOHIBITED ACTS
In an education or training environment,
sexual harassment is committed
1. Against one who is under the care, custody
or supervision of the offender;
2. Against one whose education, training,
apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted to
the offender;
14. 1
III. PHOHIBITED ACTS
In an education or training environment, sexual harassment is
committed
3. When the sexual favor is made a condition to the giving of a
passing grade, or the granting of honors and scholarships, or the
payment of a stipend, allowance or other benefits, privileges, or
consideration; or
4. When the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or
offensive environment for the student, trainee or apprentice.
Any person who directs or induces another to commit any act of
sexual harassment as herein defined, or who cooperates in the
commission thereof by another without which it would not have
been committed, shall also be held liable.
15. 1
IV. DUTIES OF HEAD OF
OFFICE/EMPLOYER
A). Promulgate appropriate rules and regulations in
consultation with and jointly approved by the
employees or students or trainees, through their
duly designated representatives, prescribing the
procedure for the investigation of sexual
harassment cases and the administrative sanctions
therefor.
Administrative sanctions shall not be a bar to
prosecution in he proper courts for unlawful acts of
sexual harassment.
16. 1
V. LIABILITY OF HEAD OF
OFFICE/EMPLOYER
The employer or head of office, educational or
training institution shall be solidarily liable for
damages arising from the acts of sexual harassment
committed in the employment, education or
training environment if the employer or head of
office, educational or training institution is informed
of such acts by the offended party and no
immediate action is taken thereon.
17. 1
VI. PENALTY
Any person who violates the provisions of this Act
shall, upon conviction, be penalized by
imprisonment of not less than one (1) month nor
more than six (6) months, or a fine of not less than
Ten thousand pesos (P10,000) nor more than
Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000), or both such fine
and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
Any action arising from the violation of the
provisions of this Act shall prescribe in three (3)
years.
18. 1
VII. JURISPRUDENCE
In Narvasa vs. Sanchez, a senior bookkeeper filed a case for
sexual harassment against the municipal assessor. In the said
case, the respondent handed notes to the victim “Gay, I like
you.”, as well as text messages saying “Ka date ko si Mary
Gay… ang tamis ng halik mo.” , “Pauwi ka na ba sexy?”, “I slept
and dreamt nice things about you.”, “Have a date with me.”,
among others. He would also whisper to the victim “Oy
flawless, pumanaw ka met ditan” while twice pinching her
upper left arm near the shoulder in a slow manner.
Furthermore, during a field trip, the respondent tried to kiss
the victim. In such case, the Supreme Court held the
respondent guilty of sexual harassment.
19. 1
VII. JURISPRUDENCE
In Domingo vs. Rayala, a case involving a stenographer as the
victim and the NLRC Chairman as the perpetrator, the
Supreme Court enunciated that sexual harassment is an
imposition of misplaced “superiority” which is enough to
dampen an employee’s spirit and her capacity for
advancement. It affects her sense of judgment; it changes her
life. Thus, in holding and squeezing the victim’s shoulders,
running his fingers across her neck and tickling her ear, having
inappropriate conversations with her, giving her money
allegedly for school expenses with a promise of future
privileges, and making statements with unmistakable sexual
overtones – all resound with deafening clarity the unspoken
request for a sexual favor.
20. 2
VII. JURISPRUDENCE
However, in sexual harassment cases, the acts complained of
must be in consonance with human experience. In Digitel vs.
Soriano, the Director for Market and Communications sued
her superiors, which were the Senior Vice-President and
Senior Executive Vice- President. The woman filed a complaint
for sexual harassment 11 months after she tendered her
resignation. The woman claimed that during a company party,
while they were seated in the sofa, one of the perpetrators
crept his hand under a throw pillow and “poked” her vagina
several times. She justified her failure to flee by claiming that
she was hemmed in by the arm of the sofa. Furthermore, she
claimed that thereafter, when she was dancing with one of the
perpetrators, the latter groped her breasts and buttocks.
21. 2
VII. JURISPRUDENCE
However, in sexual harassment cases, the acts complained of
must be in consonance with human experience. In Digitel vs.
Soriano, the Director for Market and Communications sued
her superiors, which were the Senior Vice-President and
Senior Executive Vice- President. The woman filed a complaint
for sexual harassment 11 months after she tendered her
resignation. The woman claimed that during a company party,
while they were seated in the sofa, one of the perpetrators
crept his hand under a throw pillow and “poked” her vagina
several times. She justified her failure to flee by claiming that
she was hemmed in by the arm of the sofa. Furthermore, she
claimed that thereafter, when she was dancing with one of the
perpetrators, the latter groped her breasts and buttocks.
22. 2
VII. JURISPRUDENCE
In this case, the Supreme Court did not give credence to the
allegations of the woman and dismissed the charges of sexual
harassment. The Supreme Court ratiocinated that if indeed the
perpetrators performed the condemnable act, why didn’t the
woman slap the perpetrators and left the event. The Supreme
Court further held that any woman in her right mind, whose
vagina had earlier been “poked” several times without her
consent and against her will, would, after liberating herself
from the clutches of the person who offended her, raise hell.
23. 2
VII. JURISPRUDENCE
In this case, the Supreme Court did not give credence to the
allegations of the woman and dismissed the charges of sexual
harassment. The Supreme Court ratiocinated that if indeed the
perpetrators performed the condemnable act, why didn’t the
woman slap the perpetrators and left the event. The Supreme
Court further held that any woman in her right mind, whose
vagina had earlier been “poked” several times without her
consent and against her will, would, after liberating herself
from the clutches of the person who offended her, raise hell.
24. 2
CASES FOR RECITATION
1. Gonzales vs Serrano, GR No. 175433 (2015)
2. Narvasa vs Sanchez Jr., GR No. 169449 (2010)
3. Domingo vs Rayala, GR 155831, (2008)
4. Digitel vs Soriano, GR 166039, (2006)
5. CSC vs Nierras, 569 Phil. 37 (2008)
6. Veloso vs Caminade, 478 Phil. 1 (2004)
7. Aquino vs Acosta, 429 Phil. 498 (2002)
