Presumption that no Filipino woman would publicly admit that she has been sexually harassed unless that

is the truth Filing charges for sexual harassment does not affect only the accused but also the complainants themselves, since by filing a complaint they are exposed to public mockery. -CSC Res. 950968/ 17 February 1995/ Resma, Paulino Filing charges for sexual harassment does not affect only the accused but also the complainants themselves. The reason is that the moment she filed her complaint, she is exposed to the mock and jeer of the public. Sleepless nights and mental anguish is what the victim has to suffer after courageously voicing out the transgression made upon her dignity and honor. -CSC. Res. 953599 / 15 June 1996 / Alegre, Armando As a rule, no Filipino of decent repute would publicly admit that she had been criminally abused and ravished unless that is true. It is her natural instinct to protect her honor (People v. Ramil, G.R. 52230, 15 Dec 1986) -CSC. Res. 953599 / 15 June 1996 / Alegre, Armando No decent Filipino woman would publicly admit that she has been sexually harassed unless that is the truth, for the natural instinct is to protect her honor -CSC Res. No. 973277/ 07 July 1997/ Mollaneda, Arnold The Commission held that It is well-settled rule in this jurisdiction that in case of rape, a woman would not go through the expense, trouble, shame and inconvenience of public trial, not to mention the scandal, embarrassment and humiliation such action inevitably invites, as well as allow an examination of her private parts if her motive is not to bring justice the person who abused her. (People v. Calixto, G.R. No. 92355, 24 January 1999) -CSC Res. No. 965558/ 27 August 1996 / Boneo, Eladio

Circumstances which do not per se negate a claim of sexual harassment The Supreme Court had ruled in various decisions that the absence of hematoma or contusion is not evidence that the sexual molestation never occurred, and that the force employed need not be so great that it could not be resisted. It is enough that the force employed be sufficient to consummate the act. -CSC Res. No. 965558/ 27 August 1996 / Boneo, Eladio Even if there was no rape, any act short of rape constitutes grave misconduct. -CSC Res. No. 965558/ 27 August 1996 / Boneo, Eladio As to the alleged delay in reporting, the Commission did not consider the lapse of one day as undue or unreasonable. In any case, there is no evidence that can show that the alleged delay in reporting is indicative of a fabricated charge. -CSC Res. No. 973277/ 07 July 1997/ Mollaneda, Arnold It is a well-established rule that the mere lack of corroborative evidence should not necessarily lead to the dismissal of the complaint. -CSC Res. No. 973952 / 01 October 1997 / Cruel, Leonides

The argument that the third complainant should not be believed because she neither screamed nor struggled against the assault must fail. A young woman in the threshold of womanhood, faced with the same situation, can have varying reactions. Some may fight, others can be petrified and paralyzed with shock and fear, considering that the attack came from an unexpected source. In the instant case, the person who harassed the complainants was someone they respected and trusted, the president of the University. -CSC Res. No. 980399 / 26 February 1998 / Baking, Rodolfo Circumstances which negate a claim of sexual harassment It was highly improbable that the charges were committed forthe acts (of the complainant were) not in accord with the ordinary reaction of an assaulted person, nor with human experience. (Quick facts: the said acts are: complainant kept the alleged assailant in company throughout the ride when she could have ditched him; she returned to the same seat beside him five times; she ate lunch with him and paid for his meal after the alleged assault) -CSC Res. No. 973687/ 28 August 1997 / Fernandez, Ruben

Positive, categorical narration of complainant prevails over denials and uncorroborated testimony of the accused Testimonial evidence presented cannot be given credence over the categorical narration of the complainants of the various incidents of harassment. -CSC Res. 950968/ Resma, Paulino -CSC. Res. 953599 / 15 June 1996 / Alegre, Armando "While we have frequently held that the uncorroborated testimony of the offended party in cases of this kind may be sufficient under certain circumstances to warrant conviction, yet from the very nature of the charge and the ease with which it may be made and the difficulty which surrounds the accused in disproving it where the point is as to whether the cohabitation was with or without the use of force or threats, it is imperative that such testimony should be scrutinized with the greatest caution." (People v. Villapana, G.R. 53984, 5 May 1988) -CSC Res. No. 966213/ 23 September 1996/ Belagan, Allyson -Denials if uncorroborated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving which deserve no weight in law and cannot be given evidentiary weight over the testimony of credible witness who testify on the affirmative matters. As between the positive declaration of the prosecution witness and negative statements of the accused, the latter is not worth an iota of consideration. (People v. Sencil, et al., G.R. No. Nos. 105959-60 October 12, 1993) -CSC Res. No. 965558/ 27 August 1996 / Boneo, Eladio the Civil Service Commission gave more weight to the positive testimony of the complainants and to the result of the hearings. The students answered all the questions candidly and categorically, at times even providing details, which had the incidents been mere concoctions, would normally not be included. -CSC Res. No. 980399 / 26 February 1998 / Baking, Rodolfo

The negative testimony of a witness for defense does not deserve weight and credence against the positive testimonies of the victim and her witness who testified in a straightforward manner. The Supreme Court held: In the first place, the testimony of appellant consists merely of denials without any other evidence to sustain his claim and defense. We have consistently ruled that denials if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence are negative, self-serving evidence which deserve no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary weight over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. As between the positive declarations of the prosecution witness and the negative statements of an accused, the former deserves more credence. -CSC Res. No. 980521 / 11 March 1998 / Bacsin, Dioscoro

When testimonies of complainants witnesses are deemed credible, notwithstanding their lapses The Supreme Court held that The most honest witnesses may make mistakes sometimes, but such innocent lapses do not necessarily impair their credibility. -CSC Res. No. 973277/ 07 July 1997/ Mollaneda, Arnold When testimonies of defendants witnesses are not deemed credible The Commission doubted the credibility of the testimonies of respondents four witnesses because of their admission that a day after the complainant reported the matter to the police, the respondent summoned the witnesses and discussed the incident with them. Moreover, the witnesses were respondents subordinates. -CSC Res. No. 973277/ 07 July 1997/ Mollaneda, Arnold The Court further held that a testimony given on the witness stand is given more weight than an affidavit t to taken ex parte because the latter is almost always incomplete and inaccurate, sometimes due to partial suggestions and inquiries meant to help the witness recall circumstances related to the subject. -CSC Res. No. 973277/ 07 July 1997/ Mollaneda, Arnold

Eyewitness testimony not required for a finding of guilt Although the evidence on record did not include any testimony of an eyewitness, the sequence of events as established by the credible testimonies of the witness presented disclosed the complainants contemporaneous and subsequent conduct in response to the offensive acts. -CSC Res. No. 966213/ 23 September 1996/ Belagan, Allyson The sequence of events, narrated by the complainant and her witnesses, disclosed the complainants contemporaneous and subsequent conduct in response to the offensive acts and is credible. The absence of an eyewitness to the actual commission of the acts was of no moment because Grave Misconduct through Sexual Harassment is normally committed in the absence of witnesses. -CSC Res. No. 973277/ 07 July 1997/ Mollaneda, Arnold

Presumptions against the defendant

The respondents failure to file an Answer and present evidence on his behalf despite the opportunities given him indicate that he had no evidence to present to exculpate himself from liability. -CSC. Res. 953599 / 15 June 1996 / Alegre, Armando confession and plea of forgiveness from complainant was a clear indication of his violation -CSC Res. No. 973890 / 18 September 1997 / Bobadilla, Marcelo A managerial employee is bound by a more exacting work ethic (Delfin G. Villamor vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 10634, 02 September 1994) -CSC. Res. 953599/ 15 June 1996 / Alegre, Armando

What constitutes sexual harassment/ What is material in a sexual harassment case Under Memo Circular No. 19, S. 1994, a touch on the person coupled with an attempt to kiss, even if jokingly made, if unwelcome, is intimidating, or causes discomfort or humiliation constitutes sexual harassment. -CSC. Res. 956052, 05 October 1995 / CSC Res. No. 963366, 08 May 1996/ Pambid, Eduardo Complainants reputation is immaterial in sexual harassment cases A persons character or past is not a condition that she may not be harassed by sexual solicitations. But to sustain liability, the solicitations must be unwelcome and caused discomfort or harassment to the employee concerned. -CSC Res. No. 960356 / 11 January 1996/ Yadao, Sadiri, et. al. The alleged loose morals of one of the complainants is not material to the case. What is necessary in a sexual harassment case is that the unwelcome sexual advances or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature had been committed against the complainant. The good reputation of the victim is neither a qualification for nor a prerequisite to the filing of a sexual harassment case. -CSC Res. No. 980399 / 26 February 1998 / Baking, Rodolfo

Written complaint under oath as a forma requirement; non-compliance to which is a ground for dismissal of the complaint An administrative complaint for sexual harassment would be acted upon if the complainant submits a written complaint under oath, as required under Sec. 4 of the Uniform Rules of the Commission, that complies with all the formal requirements stated in the Section. -CSC Letter dated 19 January 1996/ Cruz, Alejandre The Court directed *complainant+ to submit a duly sworn complaint in accordance with Section 4 of the Uniform Rules of Procedure in the Conduct of Administrative Investigation (CSC Resolution No. 940521), complying with the formal requirements required in the Section. -CSC Order dated 13 September 1997/ Sicuan, Antonio

Memo Circular No. 19, series of 1994 requires that complaints for sexual harassment must be made under oath. In this case, the letter was unsigned and undated, it can hardly be construed as a proper complaint for investigation. But it must be noted that the letter did not contain a request for an investigation of the sexual harassment acts complained of. It only requested the Commission to look

into the complaints for sexual harassment and acts of lasciviousness that were allegedly filed but not acted upon by the agency concerned. -CSC Res. No. 962001/ 12 March 1996/ Arro, Cesar When absence of a sworn written complaint not a ground for the complaints dismissal Sec.46 of Book V of the Administrative Code 1987 provides that a complaint under oath is not necessary when the disciplining authority initiated the administrative proceedings. -CSC Res. No. 973890 / 18 September 1997 / Bobadilla, Marcelo When desistance or withdrawal of complaint does not bar the CSC to from proceeding with the case The Commission held that Section 6, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292) states that the desistance or withdrawal of the complaint does not bar the CSC to from proceeding with the case. Where there is obvious truth or merit to the charges or complaint, the same should be given due course. -CSC Res. No. 973936/ 18 September 1997/ Agustin, Jose The Civil Service Commission held that the complainants in cases of misconduct, malfeasance or misfeasance against a public officer or employee are just witnesses, and, therefore, regardless of motions to dismiss or withdraw the complaints, the proceedings thereon may continue (citing Sy v. Academia, 198 SCRA 705) -CSC Res. No. 973890 / 18 September 1997 / Bobadilla, Marcelo Dismissal of a complaint based on the principle of res judicata Patent case of forum-shopping must be dismissed based on the principle of res judicata. (Quick facts: Administrative case was first filed with DECS, then another one involving the same subject matter with the Office of the Ombudsman, then with CSC) - CSC Res. No. 964140/ 27 June 1996 / Valencia, Efren the decisions and orders of administrative agencies rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority, have, upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata. The rule of res judicata which forbids the reopening of a matter once judicially determined by competent authority applies as well to the judicial and quasi-judicial acts of public, executive or administrative officers and boards acting within their jurisdiction. (Dulay v. Minister of Natural Resources, G.R. No. 48766 February 9, 1993) -CSC Res. No. 971783/ 11 March 1997 / Floranza, Elizalde Res judicata, as aground for dismissing a complaint, necessitates a previous final judgment in another case between the same parties involving the same subject matter and cause of action. -CSC Res. No. 973161 / 27 June 1997 / Erguiza, Gerardo S. Sr. Strict observance of technical rules of procedures is not required in administrative cases as long as the elements of fairness are not ignored (Dadubo v. Civil Service Commission, 223 SCRA 747) -CSC Res. No. 973890 / 18 September 1997 / Bobadilla, Marcelo -CSC Res. No. 973952 / 01 October 1997 / Cruel, Leonides

Only the party adversely affected by the administrative decision has the right to appeal It is a well-settled rule in administrative proceedings that only the party adversely affected by the decision may interpose an appeal. Section 49, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides that appeals, where allowable, shall be made by the party adversely affected by the decision within 15 days from receipt thereof. The Supreme Court has interpreted the term party adversely affected as referring to the person or the respondent employee against whom the administrative disciplinary case was filed (CSC Res. No. 953698, 20 June 1995) -CSC Res. No. 973952 / 01 October 1997 / Cruel, Leonides