Presentation on theme: "Duty of the Employer or Head Office Promulgate appropriate rules and regulations – Must be in consultation with and jointly approved by the employees or."— Presentation transcript:
Duty of the Employer or Head Office Promulgate appropriate rules and regulations – Must be in consultation with and jointly approved by the employees or students or trainees through their duly designated representatives – Prescribe the procedure for the investigation of sexual harassment cases and the administrative sanctions therefore – Shall include, among others, guidelines on proper decorum in the workplace and educational or training institutions
Create committee on decorum and investigation of cases on sexual harassment – Committee shall: Conduct meetings with officers and employees, teachers, instructors, professors, coaches, trainers and students or trainees to increase understanding and prevent incidents of sexual harassment Conduct investigation of alleged cases constituting sexual harassment
Villarama v. NLRC GR.No ,September 2, 1994 Petitioner Villarama, a materials manager, was charged with sexual harassment by Divina Gonzaga, a clerk-typist on probation assigned in his department. Facts that led to the act as stated in her resignation letter: – Mr. Villarama and Mr. de Jesus invited all the GIRLS of the Materials Department for a dinner. – In the last minute, the 3 other girls decided not to join the group anymore.
– The clerk-typist still decided to join since she thought that the two are her colleagues and had nothing in mind that would in any manner prompt her to refuse a simple and cordial invitation. – The 3 gentlemen were drinking while eating and even offered the lady a few drinks. – When they were finished, the gentlemen decided to bring her home.
– While on their way home, the clerk-typist found out that instead of driving her to her home, the gentlemen were taking her to a motel. The Court ruled that because of the sexual harassment conducted by petitioner Villarama, there is valid cause to terminate him from his employment
Basis for termination of employment – Article 277 (b) of the Labor Code – Loss of trust and confidence is a good ground for dismissing a managerial employee. – As a managerial employee, petitioner is bound by a more exacting work ethics. He succumbed to his moral perversity and perpetrated against his subordinate, he provides justifiable ground for his dismissal for lack of trust and confidence – Sexual harassment is reprehensible enough but more when inflicted by those with moral ascendancy over their victims.
Libres v. NLRC G.R. No May 28, 1999 Petitioner Carlos G. Libres, an electrical engineer, was holding a managerial position with National Steel Corporation (NSC) as Assistant Manager received a Notice of Investigation from his immediate superior, requesting him to submit a written explanation relative to the charge of sexual harassment made by Susan D. Capiral. The managers act of fondling the hand, massaging the shoulder and caressing the nape of his secretary constitutes sexual harassment.
Petitioner alleged that at the time of the happening of the act, R.A. No has not yet been signed into law. However, the Court ruled that the manager is still liable for sexual harassment. Republic Act No was not yet in effect at the time of the occurrence of the act complained of. It was still being deliberated upon in Congress when petitioner's case was decided by the Labor Arbiter. As a rule, laws shall have no retroactive effect unless otherwise provided, or except in a criminal case when their application will favor the accused. The Labor Arbiter have to rely on the MEC report and the common connotation of sexual harassment as it is generally as understood by the public. Faced with the same predicament, the NLRC had to agree with the Labor Arbiter. In so doing, the NLRC did not commit any abuse of discretion in affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter.