SC: Employer to pay worker-victim for failure to deter sexual assault
THE Supreme Court has ruled that an employer is liable for the unpaid salary and payment of damages to its employee who has been a victim of sexual harassment in the workplace for failing to prevent the commission, as well as for its failure to provide procedures for the resolution or prosecution of such an act.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, the high court’s Second Division affirmed the May 31, 2019 decision and the Nov. 23, 2020 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) finding that Xerox Business Services Philippines Inc. constructively dismissed an employee in relation to a sexual harassment case.
The complainant was hired by Xerox Business as Customer Care Senior Specialist in 2014. In March 2015, while at the office, the complainant was sexually harassed by Nilo dela Peña, the assigned team leader.
This prompted her to file a complaint before the Labor Arbiter against Xerox Business, its human resources manager, and dela Peña for sexual harassment, with prayer for payment of unpaid salary and damages.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the complainant, finding Xerox Business liable for constructive dismissal for its failure to create a Committee on Decorum and Investigation and investigate the incident. It ordered Xerox Business to pay complainant moral damages of P100,000, exemplary damages of P50,000, and threeday salary of P2,630.58.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s finding of constructive dismissal, but modified the award by increasing the amount of moral and exemplary damages to P500,000.
The CA modified the NLRC’s ruling by reducing the award of moral damages to P100,000 and exemplary damages to P50,000, rationalizing that these awards are not meant to enrich the employee but are intended to serve as reasonable compensation for the suffering caused to the injured party and as a correction for the public good.
Complainant thus filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court.
In denying the petition, the high tribunal took note that the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA all ruled that while the complainant did not cease to be employed, she was still constructively dismissed due to the hostile, offensive, and intimidating work environment perpetrated by Xerox Business.
The Supreme Court reiterated that in cases involving sexual harassment, an employee is deemed constructively dismissed if he or she was sexually harassed by his or her superior, and said superior failed to act on the employee’s complaint with promptness and sensitivity.
However, the high court did not sustain the complainant’s claim that she was entitled to separation pay and back wages on the basis of the finding of constructive dismissal. It took note of the fact that the complainant did not resign from her work despite the hostile, offensive, and intimidating work environment.
The high tribunal also found that the records of the case contained no allegation of demotion in rank or diminution of pay and benefits. It stressed that there was no economic loss to speak of that would warrant payment of separation benefits and back wages.
The Supreme Court did affirm the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that Xerox Business was remiss in its duty to prevent or deter commission of acts of sexual harassment and to provide procedures for resolution, settlement, or prosecution of said acts, as mandated by Section
4 of Republic Act (RA) 7877, or the “Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995.”
It thus upheld the ruling that Xerox Business was solitary liable with dela Peña for payment of damages arising from the acts of sexual harassment.
Sustaining the CA on the modification of the awards of damages, the high court ruled that reducing the amount of moral damages to P100,000 and exemplary damages to P50,000 was supported not only by the records of the case, but also by prevailing jurisprudence.