CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. PETER E. NIERRAS, respondent.

Petition for review on certiorari seeking to annul and set aside the Decision rendered by the Court of
Appeals which reduced to six months without pay the penalty of dismissal imposed on Nierras by the
Civil Service Commission (CSC).

FACTS: On July 17, 1994, Oña ( secretary of the Local Water Utilities Administration) left for Leyte
upon orders from her Department Manager, Hector Dayrit, Upon arrival in Tacloban City, Oña was
endorsed by the LWUA management adviser to Nierras.

Oña and Nierras proceeded to San Isidro, Leyte, where she held a briefing for the local officials.
After the official briefing, they then took a motorcycle to Calubian where, according to Nierras, it is
where they will he accommodated.

They first deposited their personal belongings in the house of Nierras’ cousin where he said they
would stay for the night. Thereafter, they proceeded to Nierras’ farm. Upon their arrival, Nierras had
a drinking spree with other tenants. Oña, already tired and sleepy, reminded Nierras that they should
go back to his cousin’s house to retire for the night. However, instead of going back, Nierras gave
her a sleeping mat, a blanket and a pillow and was told to rest. She then left and chose a corner in
the balcony of the house in the farm to sleep.

Around midnight, Oña was awakened when Nierras lay down beside her and crept underneath her
blanket. To her surprise, she saw that Nierras was half-naked with his pants already unzipped. She
tried to run away but Nierras pulled her and ordered her to go back to sleep. It was only when she
screamed "Ayoko, Ayoko, Ayoko!" that Nierras stopped grabbing and pulling her.

Niierras denied the charge and averred that Oña insisted that it would just be better if they slept at
the farm. Nierras then managed to borrow one blanket, one pillow and one mat. Thereafter, they lay
down on the same mat and started conversing. Oña said that she badly needed P5,000 at the
moment. Oña asked Nierras if he could lend her the money. Shocked by what Oña said, Nierras just
laughed and expressed his amazement through a sarcastic smile. Thereafter, Oña never talked
anymore to Nierras. Nierras said he saw that a part of the blanket was not being used by Oña.
Because of the weather and the swarm of mosquitoes, Nierras asked if he could use a part of the
blanket. Oña kept mum so he managed to use the unused part of the blanket to cover part of himself
to lessen mosquito bites. When Oña felt that Nierras was using a part of the blanket, she
immediately stood up, bringing with her the pillow. She never came back to the place where she
slept.

Oña filed an incident report addressed to the Administrator of the LWUA, charging Nierras with
sexual harassment implicating her immediate supervisors, Hector Dayrit and Francisco Bula, Jr., in
the charge for possible collusion and conspiracy for failure to act on her complaint despite being
informed of what Nierras did to her.

Oña filed with the CSC an affidavit for sexual harassment, grave misconduct and conduct
unbecoming a public officer. The CSC found Nierras guilty of Grave Misconduct and meted the
penalty of dismissal.

Nierras moved for reconsideration; however, the same was denied. Hence, he appealed to the Court
of Appeals.
The CA affirmed the resolution of CSC. Nierras moved for reconsideration. Thereafter, CA rendered
the partially amended decision reducing the penalty of dismissal to suspension of six months without
pay.

ISSUE : Did the acts of respondent constitute grave misconduct that warrant his dismissal from the
service?

RULING : NO. The element of corruption is absent. Nierras did not use his position as Acting
General Manager of the Metro Carigara Water District in the act of sexually harassing Oña. In fact, it
is established that Nierras and Oña are not employed or connected with the same agency or
instrumentality of the government. While this fact would not negate the possibility that sexual
harassment could be committed by one against the other, the same would not warrant the dismissal
of the offender because he did not use his position to procure sexual favors from Oña.

In the Caminade case, there were several incidents of sexual harassment by a judge from whom the
expected standard of morality was more exacting. Here, there was only one. Also in the Caminade
case, the offender actually forcefully kissed and grabbed the complainants. However, in this case,
Oña was able to flee from the arms of Nierras even before he could cause more harm to her. If a six-
month suspension can be meted to a judge from whom the expected standard of morality is more
exacting, a fortiori, the same or lesser penalty should be meted to Nierras.

Under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1994, sexual harassment does not necessarily
or automatically constitute "grave misconduct." Besides, under paragraph 2 of Section 1 thereof,
sexual harassment constitutes a ground for disciplinary action under the offense of "Grave
Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, or Simple Misconduct."

There is no doubt that the act of Nierras constituted misconduct. Misconduct refers to intentional
wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a
government official. 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. Grave
misconduct is distinguished from simple misconduct in that the elements of corruption, clear intent to
violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule must be manifest in grave misconduct.

However, it would be inappropriate to impose on him the penalty of dismissal from the service.
Section 16, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 provides
that in the determination of penalties to be imposed, mitigating and aggravating circumstances may
be considered. Considering the fact that this is the first time that Nierras is being administratively
charged, it would be too harsh to impose on him the penalty of dismissal outright. Worth noting, in
the case of Civil Service Commission v. Belagan, although the Court found that the act of the
offending public official constituted grave misconduct, still it did not impose the penalty of dismissal
on him, considering the fact that it was his first offense.

Dismissal with forfeiture of benefits, in our view, should not be imposed for all infractions involving
misconduct, particularly when it is a first offense as in the instant case.
ATTY. GRACE M. VELOSO AND MA. JOEYLYNN B. QUIÑONES, complainants, vs.
JUDGE ANACLETO M. CAMINADE, RTC, Branch 6, Cebu City, respondent.

An administrative complaint for sexual harassment separately filed by Atty. Grace Veloso and Ma.
Joeylynn Quiñones against Judge Anacleto M. Caminade of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City,
Branch 6.

FACTS : Atty. Veloso, a PAO lawyer assigned to the RTC branch presided by Judge Caminade,
alleged in her affidavit that, on March 9, 2001, she went to the court to check on her work schedule
for the following week. Judge Caminade asked her to join him and two other men at the lawyer’s
table. When two men left, Caminade her to stay behind because they needed to discuss a case and
made to sit on the visitor’s chair which was just a foot away from where the judge sat.

She was stunned when Judge Caminade suddenly placed his hand on her right thigh and squeezed
it. He then took her hand and kissed it. She immediately stood up and headed towards the door
leading to the staff room. He, however, caught up with her and placed his hand on her shoulder.
Before she could open the door, Judge Caminade told her "Kiss ko bi" (Let me kiss you). Atty.
Veloso, who was so shocked, retorted "Kalo-od nimo Judge uy" (You are so disgusting, Judge). She
then opened the door and went out of his chambers.

At the staff room, respondent judge, acting as if nothing happened, ordered his researcher to show
her certain court records. Although she was trembling, she pretended to look at the records then ran
out of the staff room and cried.

According to Caminade, After discussing her case, she allegedly reminded respondent judge of the
motion filed by her father, Atty. Eustacio Veloso, pertaining to a case pending before his sala. The
judge told her to convey to her father that he could not act on the motion yet since he needed more
time to review the voluminous records of the case. She promised to relay the message to her father.
Purportedly as a gesture of appreciation, Judge Caminade spontaneously placed his hand on her
thigh and pressed it while saying "Thank you" to her. He then playfully took her hand and kissed it.
She allegedly did nothing to protest such action because she knew that he was just teasing her. He
also opined that the complaint was filed by Atty. Veloso in order to erase any doubt about her moral
values, knowing that Atty. Limbaga and Mr. Capangpangan were present when he kissed her hand.

Judge Caminade explained that he had a tendency to tease and play pranks on his friends, both
male and female, because of his congenial nature. In fact, even before his appointment to the
judiciary, it had been his natural way of complimenting women for their physical attributes but he
never had any malice or lustful designs in his actuations.

On the other hand, Joeylynn Quiñones, Clerk III in the office of Judge Caminade, claimed that
respondent judge squeezed her hand on three different occasions. In one occasion, the judge
suddenly grabbed her right hand and kissed her on the cheek. She was so shocked that she could
not react. Thereafter, Joeylynn left the chambers and cried.

The two administrative complaints were consolidated. Justice Morales found Judge Caminade guilty
of violating Canon 2 and Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Canon 3 of the Canons of
Judicial Ethics and recommended that respondent be suspended for six months without pay.

RULING : In this particular case, we are principally concerned with the moral fiber of Judge
Caminade. His penchant for teasing and showing unwelcome affection to women indicates a certain
moral depravity and lack of respect towards his female employees. They were his subordinates and
he should have treated them like his own children. Instead, he took advantage of his superior
position.

We have repeatedly held that, while every office in the government service is a public trust, no
position exacts greater moral righteousness than a seat in the judiciary. Performing as he does an
3 

exalted role in the administration of justice, a judge must pay a high price for the honor bestowed
upon him. Thus, a judge must comport himself at all times in such a manner that his conduct, official
or otherwise, can weather the most exacting scrutiny of the public that looks up to him as the
epitome of integrity and justiceX

After carefully evaluating the records of this case, we find the conclusions and recommendation of
the investigating justice to be adequately supported by the evidence and based on applicable law
and jurisprudence - to suspend respondent judge for six months without pay.
ATTY. SUSAN M. AQUINO, complainant, vs.
HON. ERNESTO D. ACOSTA, Presiding Judge, Court of Tax Appeals, respondent.

Administrative case filed with this Court originated from a sworn affidavit-complaint of Atty. Susan M.
1 

Aquino, Chief of the Legal and Technical Staff of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), charging Judge
Ernesto Acosta, Presiding Judge of the same court, with sexual harassment under R.A. 7877 and
violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and Code of Professional Responsibility.

FACTS: Complainant alleged several instances when respondent judge sexually harassed her:

November 21, 2000 : She reported for work after her vacation in the United States, bringing gifts for
the three judges of the CTA, including respondent. In the afternoon of the same day, he entered her
room and greeted her by shaking her hand. Suddenly, he pulled her towards him and kissed her on
her cheek.

December 28, 2000 : while respondent was on official leave, he called complainant by phone, saying
he will get something in her office. Shortly thereafter, he entered her room, shook her hand and
greeted her, "Merry Christmas." Thereupon, he embraced her and kissed her. She was able to free
herself by slightly pushing him away. Complainant submitted the Joint Affidavit of Ma. Imelda C.
2 

Samonte and Anne Benita M. Santos, CTA Tax Specialists, to prove that respondent went to her
office that day.

January, 2001 : Respondent phoned complainant, asking if she could see him in his chambers in
order to discuss some matters. When complainant arrived there, respondent tried to kiss her but she
was able to evade his sexual attempt. She then resolved not to enter his chambers alone.

February 15 2001 : Respondent called complainant and asked her to see him in his office to discuss
the Senate bill on the CTA. Respondent then approached complainant saying, "me gusto akong
gawin sa iyo kahapon pa." Thereupon, he tried to "grab" her. Complainant instinctively raised her
hands to protect herself but respondent held her arms tightly, pulled her towards him and kissed
her. 

Respondent judge denied complainant's allegation that he sexually harassed her six times. 

On the first incident, he explained that it was quite unlikely that complainant would ask him to go to
her office on such date in order to give him a "pasalubong."

With respect to the second incident on December 28, he claimed it could not have happened as he
was then on official leave.

Anent the third incident, respondent explained that he went to the various offices of the CTA to
extend New Year's greetings to the personnel. He also greeted complainant with a casual buss on
her cheek and gave her a calendar. In turn, she also greeted him.

As to the fourth episode, he averred that he and complainant had been attending the deliberations of
the Bicameral Conference Committee at the Senate on the bill expanding the jurisdiction of the CTA.
Hence, when the bill was finally approved that particular day, respondent, in jubilation and in the
presence of other people, gave complainant a spontaneous peck on her cheek.

Regarding the sixth incident, he remarked that he forgot to greet her on Valentine's Day, the day
before. He approached complainant to give her a casual buss on the cheek. But she suddenly stood
and raised her arms to cover her face, causing her to lose her balance. So he held her arms to
prevent her from falling. Her rejection came as a surprise to him and made him feel quite
embarrassed

CA recommends that the administrative complaint for sexual harassment and violations of the
Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Professional Responsibility be DISMISSED and
accordingly, respondent Presiding Judge Ernesto D. Acosta be exonerated therefrom; that in view of
these charges which might have tainted the image of the Court, though unsubstantiated they may
be, Judge Acosta is WARNED to refrain from doing similar acts, or any act for that matter on the
complainant and other female employees of the Court of Tax Appeals, which in any manner may be
interpreted as lustful advances.

RULING : We agree with the findings of Justice Salonga. The complainant failed to show by
convincing evidence that the acts of Judge Acosta in greeting her with a kiss on the cheek, in a
'beso-beso' fashion, were carried out with lustful and lascivious desires or were motivated by malice
or ill-motive. It is clear under the circumstances that most of the kissing incidents were done on
festive and special occasions.

Administrative complaints against members of the judiciary are viewed by this Court with utmost
care, for proceedings of this nature affect not only the reputation of the respondents concerned, but
the integrity of the entire judiciary as well.

We have reviewed carefully the records of this case and found no convincing evidence to sustain
complainant's charges. What we perceive to have been committed by respondent judge are casual
gestures of friendship and camaraderie, nothing more, nothing less. In kissing complainant, we find
no indication that respondent was motivated by malice or lewd design. Evidently, she misunderstood
his actuations and construed them as work-related sexual harassment under R.A. 7877.

"A mere casual buss on the cheek is not a sexual conduct or favor and does not fall within
the purview of sexual harassment under R.A. No. 7877. Section 3 (a) thereof provides, to wit:

'Sec. 3. Work, Education or Training - related Sexual Harassment Defined. - Work, education or
training-related sexual harassment is committed by an employer, employee, manager, supervisor,
agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having
authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or education
environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless
of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said Act.
a) 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 sexual favor results in limiting,
segregating or classifying the employee which in anyway would discriminate, deprive or diminish
employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employees;

2) The above acts would impair the employee's right or privileges under existing labor laws; or

3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee.'

"Clearly, under the foregoing provisions, the elements of sexual harassment are as follows:

1) The employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor,
professor, coach, trainor, or any other person has authority, influence or moral ascendancy over
another;
2) The authority, influence or moral ascendancy exists in a working environment;

3) The employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor,
professor, coach, or any other person having authority, influence or moral ascendancy makes a
demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor.

There is no showing that respondent judge demanded, requested or required any sexual favor from
complainant in exchange for "favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotion or privileges"
specified under Section 3 of R.A. 7877. Nor did he, by his actuations, violate the Canons of Judicial
Ethics or the Code of Professional Responsibility.

While we exonerate respondent from the charges herein, however, he is admonished not to commit
similar acts against complainant or other female employees of the Court of Tax Appeals, otherwise,
his conduct may be construed as tainted with impropriety.

Respondent Judge Ernesto D. Acosta is hereby EXONERATED of the charges against him.
However, he is ADVISED to be more circumspect in his deportment.