View full case

ATTY. SUSAN M. AQUINO v. ERNESTO D. ACOSTA

FACTS:

The present administrative case arose from a complaint filed by Atty. Aquino against Judge Acosta, accusing him of sexual harassment. Atty. Aquino detailed several instances when Judge Acosta allegedly engaged in inappropriate behavior towards her, including kisses on the cheek and unwanted advances. She provided a joint affidavit from two witnesses to support her claims. In his response, Judge Acosta denied the allegations and maintained that his interactions with Atty. Aquino were professional in nature. He argued that the kisses on the cheek were merely friendly gestures and that the incidents did not happen as described. He also raised the office structure as a defense, arguing that improper conduct could not have occurred due to the transparent glass divider. The case was subsequently referred to Justice Salonga for investigation, and she recommended in favor of Judge Acosta, finding that there was insufficient evidence to establish the allegations of sexual harassment.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the acts of the respondent judge constitute sexual harassment.

  2. Whether the complainant was singled out by the respondent judge in his acts.

  3. Whether the alleged continuous calls made by the respondent judge to the complainant constitute sexual harassment.

  4. Whether or not the acts of the respondent judge constitute sexual harassment.

  5. Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to prove the charges of sexual harassment against the respondent judge.

  6. The issue in this case is whether or not the respondent judge engaged in sexual harassment and violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

  1. The respondent judge's acts do not constitute sexual harassment. The acts of the judge, such as giving calendars and pecking the complainant on the cheek, were done on occasions of festivities and were innocent and friendly in nature. The complainant herself reciprocated the greetings and even went to lunch with the judge after the alleged incident. The court found that the alleged kissing incident during the approval of a bill at the Senate was due to the exaltation or happiness of the moment and not sexually motivated. The allegations of continuous calls made by the respondent judge also did not constitute sexual harassment as there was no evidence that he demanded sexual advances or favors from the complainant. The purpose of the calls was to discuss the CTA Health Plan, not for sexual purposes.

  2. The Court held that the acts of the respondent judge, which involved kissing the complainant on the cheek, were merely forms of greetings and were not motivated by malice or lewd design. The Court found no indication that the acts constituted sexual harassment as defined under R.A. 7877. Therefore, the acts of the respondent judge do not fall within the purview of sexual harassment.

  3. The Court found that there was no sufficient evidence to support the charges of sexual harassment against the respondent judge. The complainant did not allege that the respondent judge demanded, requested, or required her to give him a kiss on the cheek. Furthermore, the complainant did not establish that the acts discriminated against her continued employment or resulted in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment. The Court also considered the fact that the complainant continued to perform her work with normalcy and availed of benefits and leaves appurtenant to her office. Thus, there was no hostile or intimidating working environment apparent. Therefore, the Court found that there was no sufficient evidence to create a moral certainty that the respondent judge committed the acts complained of.

  4. The respondent judge is exonerated from the charges of sexual harassment and violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Professional Responsibility. However, he is advised to be more circumspect in his deportment.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Acts of alleged sexual harassment should be evaluated in the context in which they were done and should be considered innocuous if done on occasions of festivities and without malice.

  • The reaction of the alleged victim of sexual harassment, such as reciprocating greetings and engaging in social activities with the alleged harasser, may be considered as evidence that no sexual harassment occurred.

  • Continuous calls or communication in the absence of demands for sexual advances or favors may not constitute sexual harassment.

  • Administrative complaints against members of the judiciary are viewed with utmost care as they affect not only the reputation of the respondents but also the integrity of the entire judiciary.

  • To constitute sexual harassment under R.A. 7877, the following elements must be present: (a) the presence of authority, influence, or moral ascendancy; (b) the existence of a working environment; and (c) the making of a demand, request, or requirement of a sexual favor.

  • A mere casual buss on the cheek is not considered a sexual conduct or favor and does not fall within the purview of sexual harassment under R.A. 7877.

  • Sexual harassment requires a demand, request, or requirement of a sexual favor in exchange for compensation, terms, conditions, promotion, or privileges.

  • Exoneration means absolution from the charges or accusations brought against the respondent.

  • The Code of Professional Responsibility provides ethical standards for lawyers and judges to maintain integrity and professionalism in their conduct.