View full case

RE: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT

FACTS:

Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr. was accused of sexual harassment by students of Xavier University. The anonymous complaint alleged that the respondent engaged in various acts of sexual misconduct against Antoinette Toyco, Christina Sagarbarria, and Lea Dal. Toyco claimed that the respondent sent her flowers and romantic messages, while Sagarbarria stated that he showed her a photograph of a naked woman resembling her. Dal recounted an instance where the respondent made a sexually suggestive comment during her recitation. The Committee on Decorum recommended that the respondent's teaching contract not be renewed, finding that his actions created a hostile environment for the students. The respondent defended himself by claiming that the complaints were made by disgruntled students who failed their classes. He denied sending flowers and text messages to Toyco, stating that she was the one who gave him gifts. He also argued that his actions towards Sagarbarria were part of their open relationship and that Dal's humiliation was unintended humor. The IBP-BOG initially resolved to disbar the respondent, but later reduced the penalty to a two-year suspension. The Director of the Commission on Bar Discipline affirmed that the respondent's actions were unbecoming of a lawyer but not a violation of the Anti-Sexual Harassment Law. The Court modified the recommended penalty and emphasized that sexual harassment involves abuse of power and the creation of a hostile environment.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr. is guilty of sexual harassment under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Law of 1995).

  2. Whether Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr.'s actions constituted conduct unbecoming of a member of the legal profession warranting disciplinary action.

RULING:

  1. Guilty of Sexual Harassment The Supreme Court held that Atty. Co Untian’s actions towards his students, which included sending inappropriate text messages, showing a lewd photograph, and making crude and tasteless remarks in class, constituted sexual harassment as defined by R.A. No. 7877. The Court emphasized that sexual harassment in an educational environment occurs if the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment, even if no explicit demand for sexual favors was made.

  2. Conduct Unbecoming of a Lawyer The Court found that Atty. Co Untian’s actions were unacceptable and conduct unbecoming of a member of the legal profession. They ruled that his behavior created a hostile and offensive environment, amounting to gross misconduct. Consequently, Atty. Co Untian was suspended from the practice of law for five years and from teaching law for ten years.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Definition of Sexual Harassment under R.A. No. 7877 Sexual harassment includes acts that create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment even if no explicit request for sexual favors is made.

  2. Administrative versus Criminal Sexual Harassment The essence of sexual harassment lies in the abuse of power by the offender and not necessarily in the sexual nature of the acts.

  3. Standards for Lawyers Lawyers must maintain good moral character and uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, as mandated by the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  4. Moral Ascendancy in Educational Settings The inappropriate use of authority and influence in an educational environment is a breach of ethical standards, especially for law professors who should be role models for future lawyers.

  5. Impact of Disciplinary Actions Errant behavior by a lawyer, whether in a public or private capacity, which shows a deficiency in moral character, probity, or good demeanor, warrants suspension or disbarment to protect public trust in the legal profession.