R.A.

7877
The Anti-
Sexual
Harassment
Act of 1995
1
DECLARATION
OF POLICY
AFFIRMS THE VALUE OF UPHOLDS HUMAN RIGHTS
01 03
HUMAN DIGNITY AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

PROTECTS AND ENHANCES DECLARES SEXUAL

02 THE DEVELOPMENT OF 04 HARASSMENT AS
HUMAN RESOURCES UNLAWFUL

2
What is
Sexual
Harassment?
Sexual Harassment is defined by
Republic Act No. 7877 as committed by
individuals who demand, request, or
otherwise require any sexual favor from
the victim, regardless of whether the
said demand, request, or requirement
for submission is accepted by the
victim. The act of asking for a sexual
favor is already punishable.

3
CIRCUMSTANCES ENVIRONMENT

WORK-RELATED OR
EMPLOYMENT
ENVIRONMENT

EDUCATION OR
TRAINING
ENVIRONMENT
4
 WHO CAN COMMIT IT?
Work-related or Employment
Education or Training Environment
Environment

Employers, Employee, Managers,

Supervisors, Co-workers with Teacher, Instructor, Professor,
power or seniority, Agents of the Coach, Trainor, and Persons who
employer, and Persons who having authority, influence or
having authority, influence or moral ascendency over another in
moral ascendency over another in a training or education
a training or education environment.
environment.
5
 When it is
considered sexual
harassment?
Work-related or Employment
Environment

SEXUAL FAVOR AS THE ACTS IMPAIR THE EMPLOYEE’S

01 CONDITION FOR 02 RIGHTS OR PRIVILEGES UNDER
EMPLOYMENT OR BENEFITS LABOR LAWS.

THE ACTS WOULD RESULT IN AN

02 INTIMIDATING, HOSTILE, OR
OFFENSIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT.

6
 When it is
considered sexual
harassment? THE SEXUAL FAVOR IS MADE A
03 CONDITION TO THE GIVING OF A
Education or Training PASSING GRADE, OR THE
GRANTING OF HONORS AND
Environment SCHOLARSHIPS, OR THE PAYMENT
OF A STIPEND, ALLOWANCE OR
IT IS AGAINST ONE WHO IS OTHER BENEFITS, PRIVILEGES, OR
01 UNDER THE CARE, CUSTODY, OR CONSIDERATIONS.
SUPERVISION OF THE OFFENDER.

THE SEXUAL ADVANCES RESULT IN AN

IT IS AGAINST ONE WHOSE 04 INTIMIDATING, HOSTILE OR
02 EDUCATION, TRAINING, OFFENSIVE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE
APPRENTICESHIP, OR TUTORSHIP IS STUDENT, TRAINEE OR APPRENTICE.
ENTRUSTED TO THE OFFENDER.
7
When it is considered sexual A CONDUCT OF SEXUAL NATURE AND
harassment? Under Republic 02 OTHER CONDUCT BASED ON SEX
AFFECTING THE DIGNITY OF A PERSON,
Act. No. 11313, also known as WHICH IS UNWELCOME,
UNREASONABLE, AND OFFENSIVE TO
Safe Space Act / Bawal Bastos THE RECIPIENT, WHETHER DONE
Law VERBALLY, PHYSICALLY OR THROUGH
THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY
Work-related or Employment
Environment A CONDUCT THAT IS UNWELCOME AND
03 PERVASIVE AND CREATES AN
AN ACT OR SERIES OF ACTS INTIMIDATING, HOSTILE OR
01 INVOLVING ANY UNWELCOME HUMILIATING ENVIRONMENT FOR THE
SEXUAL ADVANCES, REQUESTS OR RECIPIENT.
DEMAND FOR SEXUAL FAVORS OR
ANY ACT OF SEXUAL NATURE,
WHETHER DONE VERBALLY, Education or Training Environment
PHYSICALLY OR THROUGH THE USE
OF TECHNOLOGY, THAT HAS OR ACTS OF GENDER-BASED SEXUAL
COULD HAVE A DETRIMENTAL 01 HARASSMENT OR SEXUAL VIOLENCE
EFFECT ON THE CONDITIONS OF AN BEING COMMITTED THAT CREATES A
INDIVIDUAL’S EMPLOYMENT OR HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT IN
EDUCATION, JOB PERFORMANCE EDUCATIONAL OR TRAINING
OR OPPORTUNITIES INSTITUTIONS
 FACTS:
RE: ANONYMOUS
An anonymous complaint was filed
COMPLAINT AGAINST against Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian Jr
ATTY. CRESENCIO P. for alleged harassment of Xavier
University students. The complainants
CO UNTIAN, JR. were Antoinette Tayco, Christina
A.C. NO. 5900, APRIL 10, 2019 Sagarbarria, and Lea Dal.
J. REYES, JR., J. The Committee on Decorum and
Investigation found Untian guilty of
violating the university’s anti-sexual
harassment guidelines. However, he
denied the allegations and claimed
those were made by the students who
failed his classes.
The IBP Board of Governors initially
recommended disbarment but later
reduced the penalty to two years of
suspension.
 RULING:

· Yes.
·Court explained that it is not
ISSUE: necessary for there to be an
explicit demand or request for
Whether or not Untian’s actions sexual favors nor it is required that
constitute sexual harassment the victim accede to the sexual
as defined in R.A. No. 7877? desires of the abuser.
· Sexual harassment is committed
in an education environment when
the sexual advances result in an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive
environment.
NOTE: · R.A. No. 7877 does not require that
the victim had acceded to the sexual
desires of the abuser. It is not also
necessary that a demand or request for
sexual favor is articulated in a
categorical manner as it may be
discerned from the acts of the
offender.
· Sexual harassment is also committed
in an educational environment when
the sexual advances result in an
intimidating, hostile or offensive
environment.
ILLUSTRATIVE CASE:
Maria is a newly hired administrative assistant at ABC Company. Her supervisor, Mr.
Cruz, has authority over her work assignments, performance evaluations, and
recommendations for promotion. One afternoon, while Maria is working late, Mr. Cruz
approaches her and says, "Maria, you're doing a great job, and I see a lot of potential in
you. You know, getting ahead in this company often depends on making the right
connections and being willing to go the extra mile. How about we go out for dinner
tonight? Just the two of us. Let's discuss your future here... maybe even over a drink back
at my place afterward. It could really help your career prospects." Maria, feeling
uncomfortable, politely declines, stating she has prior commitments. The next day, Mr.
Cruz assigns her significantly more difficult and undesirable tasks than her colleagues,
begins scrutinizing her work excessively, and implies that her refusal to be "flexible"
outside of work might hinder her upcoming performance review and any chance of
receiving a raise or promotion.

Is Mr. Cruz action considered sexual harassment?

Answer:

YES, Mr. Cruz's actions are considered sexual harassment.

Under Republic Act No. 7877, a person with authority over another in an employment
environment who demands a sexual favor, and whose refusal leads to the employee
being adversely affected or subjected to a hostile environment, commits sexual
harassment.

Mr. Cruz, as Maria's supervisor, had authority, demanded a sexual favor linked to
career prospects, and subsequently penalized her refusal by creating an adverse and
hostile work environment.

Therefore, his conduct aligns with the legal definition of sexual harassment in the
workplace.
Duties of the 01 PREVENT AND DETER SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Employers
PROMULGATE RULES AND REGULATIONS WITH
Republic Act 02
EMPLOYEES/STUDENTS
7877
ESTABLISH A COMMITTEE ON DECORUM AND
03
INVESTIGATION (CODI)

04 INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS PROMPTLY

DISSEMINATE THE LAW IN THE WORKPLACE

05
OR INSTITUTION
Duties of the
Employers 01 ESTABLISH A CODE OF CONDUCT TO
PREVENT HARASSMENT
Republic Act
11313
02
DEVELOP AN INTERNAL MECHANISM FOR
HANDLING COMPLAINTS

03
CONDUCT TRAINING AND EDUCATION
PROGRAMS ON GENDER SENSITIVITY

04 DESIGNATE A GENDER FOCAL PERSON

COMMITTEE IN DECORUM AND
INVESTIGATION (CODI)
PURPOSE:
Promote awareness of sexual harassment

Investigate complaints fairly and promptly

Uphold dignity and rights in the workplace

or school
 COMPOSITION OF CODI
RA 7877 RA 11313

Workplace Setting:
1 Representative each from: Represent management,
Management supervisors, rank-and-file, and
Union (if any) union (if any)
Supervisory rank Be headed by a woman
Rank-and-file employees Have at least 50% women
School/Training Setting: members
1 Representative each from: Be impartial and not connected
Administration to the accused
Faculty/trainors/coaches
Students or trainees
Duties of the Employee
and Co-Workers
RESPECT WORKPLACE POLICIES
01
AND DECORUM

03 COOPERATE IN INVESTIGATIONS
REPORT OBSERVED OR EXPERIENCED
02
HARASSMENT

ATTEND REQUIRED ORIENTATIONS

04
OR TRAININGS
LIABILITIES OF The employer or head of
EMPLOYERS OR office/institution shall be solidarily
liable for damages arising from acts
INSTITUTION of sexual harassment if informed by
the offended party and no
Republic Act No. 7877 immediate action is taken
LIABILITIES OF EMPLOYERS OR
INSTITUTION
Republic Act No. 11313

Work-related or Employment
Education or Training Environment
Environment

Principals, school heads, teachers,

instructors, professors, coaches,
Employers may be held responsible trainers, or any other person with
for non-implementation of their authority/influence/moral
duties (Section 17) or for not taking ascendancy may be held
action on reported acts. responsible for non-implementation
of their duties (Section 22) or failure
to act on reported acts.
LBC EXPRESS-VIS, INC. FACTS:
VS. MONICA C.
Arturo Batucan is the Branch Team
PALCO Leader and OIC who endorsed
application of Monica Palco, a
G.R. NO. 217101, FEBRUARY customer associate, and acted as
12, 2020, LEONEN J. her immediate superior.
He was allegedly engaged in
sexually suggestive behavior
towards Monica Palco which
includes flirting, touching and
inappropriate jokes. In May 1, 2010,
Batucan forcibly kissed her on the
lips without consent.
· Palco reported the incident to the · On June 5, 2010, LBC served a
LBC Head Office on May 5, 2010 Notice to Explain to Batucan and an
and she submitted a formal administrative hearing was held on
complaint against Batucan on May July 20, 2010.
8, 2010 and reported the incident · Batucan was suspended for 60
to the police. days with last warning on
· On May 14, 2010, she resigned September 27, 2010. Palco filed a
due to the fact that the complaint for illegal dismissal
management did not immediately against LBC on July 20, 2010.
act on her complaint.
 RULING:

· Yes.
· LBC failed to take immediate action
on Palco’s sexual harassment
complaint, which reinforced the
ISSUE:
hostile work environment created by
Batucan.
Whether or not LBC should he
· The unreasonable delay in LBC’s
held liable for constructive investigation process, taking four
dismissal? months to resolve the matter.
· LBC’s insensitivity in handling the
complaint suggesting, that the case
was weak without physical evidence
or witnesses, demonstrated a lack of
concern for Palco’s welfare and
security.
NOTE: DUTY OF THE EMPLOYER OR HEAD OF OFFICE IN A WORK-
RELATED, EDUCATION OR TRAINING ENVIRONMENT.

Section 4 of R.A. 7877 mandates employers and heads of

educational or training institutions to prevent and address
acts of sexual harassment. They must create rules and
regulations, in consultation with representatives of
employees or students, for investigating complaints and
imposing administrative sanctions. These rules must also
include guidelines on proper decorum in the workplace or
institution. A Committee on Decorum and Investigation
(CODI) must be established, with representatives from
various sectors, to promote awareness and investigate
cases. Finally, a copy of the law must be posted or
disseminated for everyone's information.
NOTE: LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYER, HEAD OF OFFICE,
EDUCATIONAL OR TRAINING INSTITUTION

In Section 5 of Repucblic Act No. 7877, the employer

or head of office, educational or training institution
shall be solidarily liable for damages arising from the
acts of sexual harassment committed in the
employment, education or training environment if
the employer or head of office, educational or
training institution is informed of such acts by the
offended party and no immediate action is taken
thereon.
ILLUSTRATIVE CASE:
ABC Corporation is a medium-sized BPO company employing about 150 workers. Jane, a
newly hired customer service agent, filed a complaint before the company's Human
Resources Department alleging that her immediate supervisor, Mark, had been making
unwelcome sexual advances and inappropriate remarks about her appearance. Despite
Jane's complaint, the HR Manager dismissed the matter, claiming it was a “personal
misunderstanding” and failed to conduct any investigation. Jane then filed a formal
complaint for sexual harassment before the Labor Arbiter and impleaded the company as
a co-respondent.

(a) Under Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995) and related labor
laws, what are the duties of ABC Corporation upon receipt of Jane's complaint?
(b) Discuss the possible liabilities of ABC Corporation if it is proven that the company
failed to act on the complaint.
(c) May the HR Manager be held personally liable under the law? Explain.
ILLUSTRATIVE CASE:
ANSWER:

(a) ABC Corporation is duty-bound to (1) establish a clear policy against sexual
harassment, (2) disseminate this policy among all employees, (3) create a Committee on
Decorum and Investigation (CODI), and (4) promptly and objectively investigate
complaints. Its failure to investigate or act on Jane’s complaint violates the law.

(b) The corporation may be held jointly liable with the harasser if it is shown that it failed
to exercise due diligence in preventing or responding to the sexual harassment. This
includes administrative penalties, potential civil damages, and reputational harm.

(c) Yes. Under RA 7877 or the Safe Spaces Act (RA 11313), officers such as the HR
Manager may be held personally liable for neglecting their duty to investigate and
prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.
REMEDIES FOR THE VICTIMS
RA 7877 RA 11313

File administrative complaints

Access legal, medical, and
(internal)
psychological services
File criminal complaints in
Seek protection orders and
court
legal assistance
File for civil damages
PENALTIES
Republic Act No. 7877

IMPRISONMENT: NOT LESS THAN 1 MONTH AND

NOT MORE THAN 6 MONTHS

FINE: NOT LESS THAN ₱10,000 AND NOT MORE

THAN ₱20,000

OR BOTH: AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT (THE JUDGE CAN

IMPOSE BOTH IMPRISONMENT AND FINE DEPENDING ON THE CASE)
PENALTIES EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY
Republic Act No. 11313
➤ FINED:
ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS ₱5,000 to ₱10,000 for the
Suspension first offense
Termination Higher fines and
Reprimand sanctions for repeated
Mandatory Gender Sensitivity Training failure
CRIMINAL PENALTIES (IF APPLICABLE) ➤ REQUIRED TO:
Imprisonment under relevant laws (e.g., Attend gender sensitivity
under RA 7877 or RA 11313 if it overlaps seminars
with other offenses) Submit compliance
Fines (amount varies depending on reports on internal
severity) grievance mechanisms
JOSE ROMEO C. FACTS:
ESCANDOR VS.
This case involves Jose Romeo C.
PEOPLE OF THE Escandor a Regional Director of
PHILIPPINES NEDA Region 7 and Cindy Sheila C.
G.R. NO. 211962, JULY 6, Gamallo, a contractual employee of
2020, LEONEN J. NEDA Region 7.
From July 1999 to November 2003,
Gamallo alleged to have committed
multiple incidents of sexual
harassment by Escandor,
including: unwanted physical
contact, verbal sexual advances,
inappropriate text messages and
calls.
She filed her Complaint-
Affidavit on September 4,
2004, about 9 months after her
contract ended.
ISSUE:
The Sandiganbayan found
Escandor guilty under R.A. No.
Whether or not Escandor’s guilt
7877, imposing 6 months
for sexual harassment under
imprisonment and a ₱20,000
R.A. No. 7877 was proven
fine.
beyond reasonable doubt.
Escandor appealed to the
Supreme Court, raising issues
on credibility, evidence, and
procedural defects.
RULING:

·The Supreme Court held that all ·Escandor’s acts resulted in an

elements of sexual harassment intimidating, hostile, and offensive
under the law were present. environment.
• Escandor exercised authority
over Gamallo in a work-related
environment, and his actions
constituted a request for sexual
favors.
• Gamallo’s testimony was found
credible, consistent, and
supported by three colleagues.
NOTE: Sexual harassment engenders
three-fold liability: criminal, civil,
and administrative.
Mere commission is sufficient to
warrant a conviction.
There is no time period within
which a victim is expected to
complain about sexual harassment.
The time to do so may vary
depending upon the needs,
circumstances, and more
importantly, the emotional
threshold of the employee.
ILLUSTRATIVE CASE:
Maria is a high school teacher employed in a private educational institution. She filed a
complaint for sexual harassment against the school principal, Mr. Santos, for repeatedly
sending her inappropriate messages and attempting to initiate romantic relations despite
her rejections. The school conducted an internal investigation but absolved Mr. Santos,
citing lack of substantial evidence. Maria subsequently filed a complaint with the Civil
Service Commission and a separate criminal complaint under Republic Act No. 7877
(Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995).

(a) What are the possible remedies available to Maria under existing laws on sexual
harassment?
(b) What administrative and criminal penalties may possibly be imposed to Mr. Santos if
he is found guilty of sexual harassment?
ILLUSTRATIVE CASE:
ANSWER:

(a) Maria may seek administrative, civil, and criminal remedies. Administratively, she can
file before the CSC or DepEd, depending on her employment classification. She can
pursue a criminal case under RA 7877 or RA 11313 (Safe Spaces Act). She may also claim
damages (moral, exemplary) under the Civil Code.

(b) Under RA 7877, if found guilty, Mr. Santos may face administrative sanctions
(suspension or dismissal) and criminal penalties of imprisonment of 1 month to 6 months
and/or a fine of up to ₱20,000, without prejudice to civil liability.