Scribd
Upload
12 views2 pages

27 Anonymous Complaint Against Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, JR

The document details an anonymous complaint against Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr. for sexual harassment of students at Xavier University, with specific allegations from three students. The Supreme Court found that Untian's actions constituted sexual harassment under R.A. No. 7877, affirming that such conduct creates a hostile environment and does not require explicit demands for sexual favors. As a result, Untian was suspended from practicing law for five years and from teaching law for ten years.

Uploaded by

Kevs Cayao
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
12 views2 pages

27 Anonymous Complaint Against Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, JR

The document details an anonymous complaint against Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr. for sexual harassment of students at Xavier University, with specific allegations from three students. The Supreme Court found that Untian's actions constituted sexual harassment under R.A. No. 7877, affirming that such conduct creates a hostile environment and does not require explicit demands for sexual favors. As a result, Untian was suspended from practicing law for five years and from teaching law for ten years.

Uploaded by

Kevs Cayao
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Re: Anonymous Complaint Against Atty. Cresencio P.

Co Untian,
Jr. for Sexual Harassment

Facts:
The case revolves around an anonymous complaint filed on May 14, 2002,
against Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr., alleging his sexual harassment of
students at Xavier University, Cagayan de Oro City. Three students,
Antoinette Toyco, Christina Sagarbarria, and Lea Dal, were specifically
mentioned as victims in the complaint. The complainant, identified only
as a “law practitioner,” later provided further details, including the
victims’ affidavits and the Committee on Decorum’s resolution at Xavier.

Toyco described unwelcome romantic gestures from Untian, including


flowers and texts with romantic undertones. Sagarbarria recounted an
incident where Untian showed her a lewd photo, suggesting it was her, in
view of other students, deeply humiliating her. Dal experienced sexual
insinuation during a class recitation, which Untian allegedly joked about in
his other classes. The Committee on Decorum recommended non-renewal
of Untian’s teaching contract for violating the university’s anti-sexual
harassment guidelines.

Untian responded, attributing the complaints to disgruntled failing


students, and attempted to justify or deny his actions towards each
complainant.

Issues:
1. Whether Untian’s actions constituted sexual harassment under R.A. No.
7877, the “Anti-Sexual Harassment Law of 1995.”
2. Whether Untian’s conduct was unbecoming of a member of the legal
profession.

Court’sDecision:
The Supreme Court modified the IBP-BOG’s penalty, focusing on whether
Untian’s actions amounted to education-related sexual harassment under
R.A. No. 7877. The Court affirmed that sexual harassment in an
educational setting does not necessitate a direct or categorical demand
for sexual favors. The essence of sexual harassment is the abuse of
power, not necessarily the violation of the victim’s sexuality.

The Supreme Court clarified that sexual harassment, particularly in an


educational setting, does not require an explicit request or demand for
sexual favors. The law targets the abuse of power which manifests
through sexually charged conduct or behavior with sexual undertones,
creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the victim.
R.A. No. 7877: Defined broadly to include any unwanted sexual advances
or conduct that creates a hostile or offensive environment, not
necessarily involving an explicit demand for sexual favors.

The Court found that Untian’s actions towards Sagarbarria, Dal, and Toyco
indeed constituted sexual harassment, creating an intimidating, hostile,
or offensive environment. His conduct was deemed grossly unbecoming
of a member of the legal profession, violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility’s mandates on lawful and moral behavior. Untian was
suspended from the practice of law for five years and from teaching law
for ten years, with a stern warning of more severe penalties for similar
future offenses.

You might also like