EN BANC
G.R. No. 169449 : March 26, 2010
TERESITA G. NARVASA, Petitioner, v. BENJAMIN A. SANCHEZ, JR. Respondent.
RESOLUTION
Per Curiam:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the April 25, 2005 decision and August 4, 2005
resolutionc of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 81107.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
The parties to this case are employees of the Municipality of Diadi, Nueva Vizcaya (the LGU). Petitioner
Teresita G. Narvasa is a senior bookkeeper while respondent Benjamin A. Sanchez, Jr. is the municipal
assessor.
The instant case stemmed from three cases of sexual harassment filed separately against respondent by
petitioner along with Mary Gay P. de la Cruz and Zenaida M. Gayaton, who are also employees of the LGU.
In her affidavit-complaint, De la Cruz claimed that, sometime in February 2000, respondent handed her a
note saying, Gay, I like you. Offended by respondent inappropriate remark, de la Cruz admonished him for
giving her such a note and told him that she would give the note to his wife. Respondent then grabbed the
note from her and tore it into pieces. However, this first incident was followed by a message sent to De la
Cruz sometime in March 2002 in which he said, Ka date ko si Mary Gay ang tamis ng halik mo.
On the other hand, Gayaton narrated that, on April 5, 2002, respondent whispered to her during a retirement
program, Oy flawless, pumanaw ka met ditan while twice pinching her upper left arm near the shoulder in a
slow manner.
A few days later, Gayaton received a text message while she was passing respondents car in front of the
municipal hall. The message said, Pauwi ka na ba sexy? Gayaton later verified through respondents clerk,
Alona Agas, that the sender of the message was respondent.
On or about April 22 to 25, 2002, Gayaton received several messages from respondent stating: (1) I like you;
(2) Have a date with me; (3) Dont tell to (sic) others that I told that I like you because nakakahiya; (4) Puso
mo to pag bigay moto sakin, I would be very happy and (5) I slept and dreamt nice things about you.
Finally, as far as petitioners complaint was concerned, she asserted that, on November 18, 2000, during a
field trip of officers and members of the St. Joseph Multi-Purpose Cooperative to the Grotto Vista Resort in
Bulacan, respondent pulled her towards him and attempted to kiss her. Petitioner resisted and was able to
escape the clutches of respondent to rejoin the group that they were travelling with. Respondent apologized
to petitioner thrice regarding that incident.
Based on the investigation conducted by the LGUs Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI),
respondent was found guilty of all three charges by Municipal Mayor Marvic S. Padilla. For the offenses
committed against De la Cruz and Gayaton, respondent was meted the penalties of reprimand for his first
offense of light harassment and 30 days suspension for his first offense of less grave sexual harassment. His
transgression against petitioner, however, was deemed to be grave sexual harassment for which he was
dismissed from the government service.
On appeal, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) passed only on the decision in the case filed by
petitioner since, under the CSC rules, the penalty of reprimand and/or suspension of not more than 30 days
cannot be appealed. The CSC dismissed the appeal but modified Mayor Padillas order by holding respondent
guilty of grave misconduct instead of grave sexual harassment. The same penalty of dismissal from the
service, however, was meted out to respondent.
Respondents next recourse was to the CA which partially granted his appeal. The CA modified the
CSC resolution, finding respondent guilty only of simple misconduct. Accordingly, the penalty was lowered to
suspension for one month and one day.
Petitioner comes to this Court to appeal the downgrading of respondent offense to simple misconduct.
The core issue for our resolution is whether the acts committed by respondent against petitioner
(since the CSC resolution only touched upon petitioner complaint) constitute simple misconduct or grave
misconduct.
Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of
behavior. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the
performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. In grave misconduct, as distinguished
from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an
established rule must be manifest.
Respondents acts of grabbing petitioner and attempting to kiss her were, no doubt, intentional.
Worse, the incident occurred months after he had made similar but subtler overtures to De la Cruz, who
made it clear that his sexual advances were not welcome. Considering that the acts respondent committed
against petitioner were much more aggressive, it was impossible that the offensive nature of his actions
could have escaped him. It does not appear that petitioner and respondent were carrying on an amorous
relationship that might have justified his attempt to kiss petitioner while they were separated from their
companions. Worse, as petitioner and respondent were both married (to other persons), respondent not only
took his marital status lightly, he also ignored petitioners married state, and good character and reputation.
We disagree with the CA that neither corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard
of an established rule attended the incident in question. RA 7877, the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995,
took effect on March 5, 1995. Respondent was charged with knowledge of the existence of this law and its
contents, more so because he was a public servant. His act of grabbing petitioner and attempting to kiss her
without her consent was an unmistakable manifestation of his intention to violate laws that specifically
prohibited sexual harassment in the work environment. Assuming arguendo that respondent never intended
to violate RA 7877, his attempt to kiss petitioner was a flagrant disregard of a customary rule that had
existed since time immemorial that intimate physical contact between individuals must be consensual.
Respondents defiance of custom and lack of respect for the opposite sex were more appalling because he
was a married man. Respondents act showed a low regard for women and disrespect for petitioners honor
and dignity.
The CA, however, interpreted respondents repeated apologies to petitioner as an indication of the
absence of intention on his part to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. On the contrary, such
persistent attempts to make peace with petitioner indicated how well respondent was aware of the gravity of
the transgression he had committed. Respondent certainly knew of the heavy penalty that awaited him if
petitioner complained of his aggressive behavior, as she, in fact, did.
Section 53 of Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases provides a list of the
circumstances which may be considered in the determination of penalties to be imposed. The CA considered
respondents more than ten years of government service and claim of being awarded Most Outstanding
Municipal Assessor of Region II for three years as mitigating circumstances. Again, we disagree.
Length of service as a factor in determining the imposable penalty in administrative cases is a
double-edged sword. In fact, respondents long years of government service should be seen as a factor which
aggravated the wrong that he committed. Having been in the government service for so long, he, more than
anyone else, should have known that public service is a public trust;cЃa1 that public service requires utmost
integrity and strictest discipline, and, as such, a public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of
honesty and integrity. Sadly, respondents actions did not reflect the integrity and discipline that were
expected of public servants. He failed to live up to the image of the outstanding and exemplary public official
that he was. He sullied government service instead.
Furthermore, we note that this is the third time that respondent is being penalized for acts of sexual
harassment. We are also alarmed by the increasing boldness in the way respondent displayed his
unwelcome affection for the women of his fancy. He is a perverted predator preying on his female colleagues
and subordinates. Respondents continued misbehavior cannot, therefore, be allowed to go unchecked.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. Resolution No. 031176 issued by the Civil Service
Commission finding respondent Benjamin A. Sanchez, Jr. guilty of grave misconduct is REINSTATED.
Respondent Benjamin A. Sanchez, Jr. is ordered DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of retirement
benefits except accrued leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or
instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations. This is without
prejudice to any criminal complaints that may be filed against him.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
PUNO, C.J. (On Official Leave), CARPIO, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ, and MENDOZA, JJ.
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in
the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.ch
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice
