525 Phil. 765
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
REVIEW OF OVERALL PERFORMANCE:Apparently in an attempt to shift the blame on the unfavorable evaluation made on her, Mariquit gave unfavorable evaluation of her two remaining managers, Evelyn and Andrea.
(Special comments on performance in particular work areas, overall performance and development under the covered period.)
Clearly, Ms. Soriano possesses the requisite traits to be successful in her responsibility areas. The overall performance of the department assigned to her in both quantitative and qualitative aspects, will increase significantly with Ms. Soriano's commitment to focus on output expectations.
TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT:
(Please comment on the staff member's training and development needs in the year to come, taking into consideration his/her strengths and areas for improvement.)
Ms. Soriano should endeavor to overcome whatever residual effects the P. Macachor situation caused. She should return to her overall sunny and cheerful disposition. This will significantly contribute to the positive department work atmosphere with improved performance as a result.[5] (Emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied)
x x x xAbout one and a half years after she filed her letter of resignation or on December 20, 2001, Mariquit filed a complaint[19] for illegal dismissal against petitioners Digitel, Go and Severino before the NLRC, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 12-06571-2001. During the initial mandatory conference which took place on January 23, 2002, she clarified that her cause of action was for "constructive dismissal,"[20] alleging that she was harassed by herein individual petitioners to thus compel her to resign from Digitel.x x x x[18] (Underscoring supplied)
- Sometime in January 2001 Ms. Soriano and her son went to my office; She told me that she had dinner with Mr. Johnson [Go] and a common friend and that Mr. Johnson [Go] told her to see me;
- On my part, I was already expecting that this was what Mr. Johnson [Go] and I had agreed in principle earlier – to extend financial assistance, for humanitarians [sic], to Ms. Soriano;
- To my surprise, Ms. Soriano told me that she was advised by her lawyer to explore means in settling her case with Mr. Johnson [Go]. She then told me that she needs money to: (a) send her children abroad, (b) to start a business of her own and (c) to pay the fees of her lawyers; Based on her insinuations I had the impression that she wanted millions of pesos;
- Clearly, she had a wrong impression and it appeared to me that she is extorting money from the company; To end our conversation, I told her that if that is what she wanted I have no authority to grant the same, what the company intended was to give her a separation pay, even though she is not entitled to it; I also told her that maybe she has misunderstood the humanitarian gesture taken by the company; Thereafter, she already left the office.
The factual background of this case clearly shows that complainant voluntarily resigned from her employment. We sympathize with her but we cannot sustain her contention that she was constructively dismissed. With complainant's educational and professional background, it would be absurd to assume that she did not understand the import of her own words and the consequences of her own acts of voluntary resignation.The Labor Arbiter also observed:
Complainant's submission that she was "forced to resign" because of the way she was sexually and professionally harassed by respondents Eric J. Severino and Johnson Robert L. Go were not sufficiently established by substantial, concrete and credible evidence.
The affidavit of Ms. Sta. Clara [submitted by Mariquit] is purely hearsay evidence. Her statements do not even qualify as part of the res gestae. Ms. Sta. Clara was not personally present during the times that respondent Go allegedly poked, several times, at complainant's private parts. Neither was she physically present when respondent Severino was allegedly staring at complainant's crotch and made suggestive remarks to the latter. She, therefore, could not concretely, credibly nor substantially testify as to those facts or circumstances that she acquired through her own perception or organs of sense. Her affidavit does not establish the truth of the facts stated therein.
The affidavit of Mr. Frank Wenceslao [also submitted by Mariquit] is not only telling, so to speak; it is also highly suspect. It is likewise hearsay, as that of Ms. Sta. Clara's. It must be taken with utmost precaution. It should be carefully scrutinized. Mr. Wenceslao knew that respondent Go and his brother Henry were "reputed to be womanizers." Why then would he (Wenceslao) encourage the mother of his own love child to apply and accept a job offered by respondent company knowing fully well that she, with whom he was again sleeping together at that time, would be working with and for Mr. Go who has a "questionable reputation" with women? Why would he have prevailed upon complainant who already wanted to resign from her job during those periods that she was being allegedly professionally and sexually harassed? His testimony is that of an "interested person" and should thus be rejected.
Complainant's own allegation, although they are so detailed, appear incredible if not downright puny. An analysis of her statements shows that her own conclusion that she was being sexually and professionally harassed was on the basis of her own suppositions, conjectures, and surmises. Some of her statements are inconsistent. She could not satisfactorily explain her allegation that she was consistently professionally harassed by respondent Severino. The latter's alleged words: "How come you claim you know so much yet nothing ever gets done in your department?" do not jurisprudentially constitute nor clearly establish "professional harassment." Aside from these words, the complainant could only venture to allege instances in general and vague terms.
As to the facts allegedly constituting "sexual harassment" advanced by Go and Severino, after an objective analysis over their assertions as stated in their respective counter-affidavits and further considering the other supporting documents attached to the respondents' pleadings, it is found that these far out weigh the complainant's own evidence.[22] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
One last note: During the initial mandatory conference on January 23, 2003, while the respective parties' counsels and the undersigned were discussing on some matters, complainant who was seated opposite respondent Severino discreetly showed him her middle finger (the "dirty finger" sign) and later, took his cellular phone which he placed on the table and banged it on the table. Mr. Severino then asked the undersigned if it would be possible, at the next hearing, to have someone officially record and take note of the deportment of the parties during the hearings. When the undersigned asked what for, respondent Severino narrated what had just transpired between him and the complainant. When the undersigned asked if this was true, the complainant, looking at respondent Go, rudely replied: "Because you are not my boss anymore!"The Labor Arbiter thus disposed:
The conduct displayed by the complainant in the presence not only of the undersigned, the parties' respective legal counsels but also with complainant's own daughter around shows much of her character.[23] (Underscoring supplied)
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING this complaint for constructive dismissal for lack of merit.On appeal, the NLRC referred the case to Labor Arbiter Thelma M. Concepcion "for review, hearing when necessary with power to cite the parties for contempt under Article 218(d), Labor Code and submission of report for the Commission's deliberation."[25]
The counterclaim of the respondents is likewise dismissed for lack of merit.
All other claims herein sought and prayed for are hereby denied for lack of legal and factual bases.[24]
x x x xHer motion for reconsideration having been denied by the NLRC by Order of January 30, 2004,[29] Mariquit filed a Petition for Certiorari[30] before the Court of Appeals.
With such tendency to threaten resignation everytime higher management would refuse her demand to transfer subordinates who had administrative differences with her, we therefore have no doubt that complainant voluntarily resigned when respondent Severino refused to heed her demand that Ms. Arnedo and Ms. Inductivo, her subordinates, be transferred to other departments. We also have no doubt that such resignation does not constitute constructive dismissal, much less an illegal one.
x x x x[28] (Underscoring supplied)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present petition is hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE and the questioned Decision and Resolution of the NLRC dated August 18, 2003 and January 30, 2004, respectively, are hereby both ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Private respondents are hereby declared liable for illegal dismissal and are consequently ordered to pay petitioner jointly and severally the back wages due to her computed from July 1, 2000 based on her latest salary as of that date up to the time of the finality of this judgment. As reinstatement is no longer feasible, private respondents are hereby also ordered to pay petitioner separation pay equivalent to one (1) month's salary for every year of service, as prayed for by petitioner in her complaint.Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by Resolution of November 10, 2004,[34] they lodged the present petition faulting the appellate court as follows:
Further, private respondents are hereby ordered to pay petitioner the sums of P200,000.00 and P100,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages, respectively, as well as attorney's fees in the amount equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award.
No pronouncement as to costs.[33]
and pleading thatI.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GIVING RESPONDENT�S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DUE COURSE, THERE BEING NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION EITHER BY THE NLRC OR THE LABOR ARBITER AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION.II.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN REVERSING AND DISTURBING THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY WHICH ARE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
- THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE NLRC ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LABOR ARBITER, AND BOTH ARE DULY SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
- THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRIMARILY APPRECIATE THE FACTS ARE GIVEN GREAT WEIGHT AND PREFERENCE.
- THE FINDINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY MAY BE REVERSED ONLY ON CLEAR SHOWING OF PALPABLE ERROR.
III.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FOUND PETITIONERS GUILTY OF ILLEGAL DISMISSAL CONSIDERING THAT THE HONORABLE COURT MADE SEVERAL FINDINGS OF FACT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT OR BASIS ON RECORD, AND RULED ON SOME ISSUES WHICH NEITHER RESPONDENT NOR PETITIONERS RAISED IN THE PRESENT CASE.
- THE COURT OF APPEALS GAVE UNDUE AND UNDESERVED CREDENCE TO THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY DR. MAGNO.
- THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT SEXUAL HARASSMENT DID OCCUR.
- PETITIONERS SHOWED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVITS TO DISPUTE THE ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL. THESE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SIMPLY BRUSHED ASIDE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.
- THE COURT OF APPEALS MADE OTHER FACTUAL FINDINGS THAT LACKED COHERENCE OR BASIS, DEFIED LOGIC, OR WERE OTHERWISE IMMATERIAL TO THE REOLUTION OF THE CASE, AND DISREGARDED OTHER ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY PETITIONERS.
- THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AWARDING BACKWAGES, SEPARATION PAY, AND DAMAGES, (Emphasis and underscoring supplied),
The first two errors assigned by petitioners, along with their plea for a review of the appellate court's findings of fact, being interrelated, shall be discussed simultaneously.IV
JUSTIFIABLE REASONS REQUIRE THE SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.[35] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
x x x As a general rule, in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court under which the petition was brought to the Court of Appeals, the appellate court does not assess and weigh the sufficiency of evidence upon which the labor arbiter and the NLRC based their conclusions, the query being limited to the determination of whether or not the NLRC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering its resolution, except if the findings of the NLRC are not supported by substantial evidence.[39] (Italics in the original; underscoring supplied)In her petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, Mariquit attributed to the NLRC the commission of grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction "in dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal[,] ignoring clear and convincing proof of sexual harassment."[40] (Underscoring supplied)
Indeed, the record is replete with substantial evidence showing that the complainant was not forced to resign through any act of sexual harassment. Rather, as reported by Arbiter Concepcion and as admitted in complainant's position paper [dated April 26, 2002], she voluntarily resigned when "her repeated requests for the transfer to some other department of two of her key personnel, Ms. Andrea Arnedo and Ms. Evelyn Inductivo" were refused by "respondent Severino."[42] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)Petitioners' third assigned error which bears on her claim of sexual harassment calls for a determination of the weight of Mariquit's evidence of forced resignation.
Under the circumstances, it is improbable for respondent Go to have committed the alleged acts of lasciviousness. In the company party held [on November 19, 1999] in Quezon City, more or less sixty (60) people were present occupying the living room and lanai area of the residence of Policarpio B. Pau, Jr. It is highly unthinkable that respondent Go would make any sexual advances in the presence of so many people and no one would notice. Aside from complainant's allegations, there is nothing on record to corroborate the same. In fact, not one of the sixty (60) guests supported her claims. On the other hand, respondent Go submitted the affidavit of the party's host, Policarpio B. Pau, Jr., stating that he never saw respondent Go make advances to complainant. Moreover, according to another guest, Ms. Purisima Y. Velasco, respondent Go talked to complainant for a while and proceeded to join the other guests.At this juncture, this Court could stop and refrain from calibrating the evidence on whether sexual harassment indeed forced Mariquit to resign. For Pono v. National Labor Relations Commission[44] instructs:
The conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged assault is of utmost importance so as to establish the truth or falsity of the charge for acts of lasciviousness. Complainant's deportment seemed unnatural for someone who allegedly went through a harrowing experience. For evidence to be believed it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself such as the common experiences and observation of mankind can approve under the circumstances. In the instant case after the alleged sexual advances, complainant continued working for Digitel until her resignation effective on June 30, 2000. During her employment with Digitel, she never initiated or filed any case for sexual harassment or acts of lasciviousness against respondents. Further, when she eventually resigned, she did not even state in her resignation letter that her resignation was due to sexual harassment or sexual abuse. Finally, it took complainant almost two (2) years before filing her complaint.
Indeed, complainant's uncorroborated testimony is not sufficient to sustain a finding of probable cause for acts of lasciviousness against respondent Go.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the assailed resolution is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The City Prosecutor of Quezon City is directed to cause the withdrawal of the Information for acts of lasciviousness against respondent Robert Johnson L. Go and report to this Office the action taken within ten (10) days from receipt hereof.[43] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied).
x x x The Court takes cognizance of the fact that a criminal complaint for attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness filed by Pono against Castillo before the Prosecutors Office in Makati was eventually dismissed due to lack of merit, which dismissal was affirmed by the Department of Justice. Indisputably, an investigating fiscal is under no obligation to file a criminal information where he is not convinced that he has the quantum of evidence at hand to support the averments.Absent any showing that the DOJ acted with arbitrariness, this Court is bound to accept its findings as it is this department which has control and supervision over public prosecutors.
Thus, the determination of the persons to be prosecuted rests primarily with the prosecutor who is vested with quasi-judicial discretion in the discharge of this function. The courts should give credence, in the absence of a clear showing of arbitrariness, to the findings and determination of probable cause by prosecutors in a preliminary investigation.[45] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
x x x xAs regards petitioner Severino, Mariquit stated:x x x x[49] (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)
- Sometime in May 1999, during a cocktail party for the sales department of Digitel held at the Summit Lounge of the Manila Galleria Suites, Go, after noticing that I was wearing a short skirt, insisted that I sit down so that he could take a better look at my legs.
- On 20 August 1999, in a company-wide sales conference at Manila Midtown Hotel in Ermita Manila, Go while purportedly asking questions about my work, deliberately dropped his hand on my lap and repeatedly stroked my thighs. I was shocked and deeply offended by Go's indecent display of behavior;
- After the sales conference, Go became more attentive to me and began to drop by at my office to start a conversation with me. Such sudden display of affection disturbed me as well as made me feel awkward whenever Go approached me;
- In October 1999, during a farewell party for departing Digitel officers held at the residence of Digitel employee Matet Ruiz, Go insisted that I dance with him. Fearful of causing a scene at a public gathering, I agreed to dance a few steps with him and when I attempted to sit down, Go blocked my way and pinched my waist;
- On 19 November 1999, during another party given by an officer of Digitel, Mr. Policarpio B. Pau at his residence in Quezon City, I could no longer elude Go's advances because he cornered me on a sofa by sitting so close and in such a way that I was virtually pinned against the side of the sofa. Go held my hand and started massaging it in the guise of looking at the ring that I was then wearing. Because I felt uncomfortable and uneasy with Go's repulsive actions, I took off the ring and gave it to him. To date, Go has not yet returned the ring to me.
- Go then crept his hand under the throw pillow which I had placed to separate me from Go to reach for my vagina and to poke it several times. I could not escape because I was hemmed in by the arm of the sofa.
- When I was finally able to extricate myself from Go's clutches, I stood up, but Go pulled me to the dance floor, pressed me close to him and moved his hand across my back to feel my body. I tried to move away from him and at the same time tried not to attract anyone' [sic] attention nor to cause a scene. Go then whispered in my ears, "Do not push me, I could make life in Digitel easy for you. I can take care of your promotion and give you rewards."
- In order to break free from Go's holds, I maneuvered to turn to the beat of the music. Go then reached out his hand and groped my breast, caressed my back and reached inside my blouse to rub me from up my brassieres down to my buttocks. As I was trying to resist Go's sexual advances, Go again hinted that my promotion would be accelerated if I would only be "nice" to him.
- On 11 February 2000, during a dinner party for Digitel's sales force held at the Manila Galleria Suites, Go called for me to start the line for the buffet and again rubbed his hand across my back to feel my brassiere.
x x x xGrace J. Sta. Clara, a licensed broker of the Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. and, as stated above, a friend of Mariquit, declared in her affidavit:x x x x (Italics in the original).[50]
- I also caught Severino looking at my legs up to the back of my thighs on several occasions, to wit: (a) in January 1999 when he intentionally pointed to my legs to a fellow company officer who also looked at them; (b) in the NEAX Training Room in February 1999 when I picked up things I dropped on the floor, where Severino even walked behind me to get a better view of my thighs; and (c) during our out-of-town strategic planning session in September 1999 at the Princess Urduja Hotel in Pangasinan.
- Whenever Severino presided over meetings where I was asked to attend, he always tilted his head to look at my legs and peek in between my thighs thereby making me feel awkward and uncomfortable such that I preferred to sit with my back facing him.
- During my last few months in Digitel, specifically March to June 2000, Severino purposely sat near me during meetings and intentionally brushed his legs on my legs;
- After the 19 November 1999 incident with Go at the party of Mr. Policarpio B. Pau, I reported my disgrace and outrage over the sexual advances inflicted upon me by Go, to Severino to which he replied, "I saw what happened. I have eyes too."
x x x xFor his part, Francisco C. Wenceslao, father of one of Mariquit's four children, stated in his Affidavit:x x x x (Italics in the original; underscoring supplied)
- That Ms. Soriano told me she often caught Severino staring at her crotch and made suggestive remarks, for instance, he asked her to wear shorts during out of town trips.
- That the real shock to me was when Ms. Soriano told me of the incident at a party given by one of Digitel officials when she was harassed by Johnson Go, a brother of Mr. John Gokongwei and Digitel's Senior EVP, which in her words ran, more or less, as follows: "Hinipuan ako sa boobs at dinukot yon pipi ko."
- That I asked Ms. Soriano to sue Johnson Go for his dastardly act but she hesitated understandably because, as a single parent with four children, she did not want to lose her job and decided to just avoid Go.
- That after the incident and Go must have felt that Ms. Soriano was avoiding him, which he said so according to her, Severino suddenly changed his attitude toward her and, in Ms. Soriano's words, began making impossible demands she could not possibly comply with.
- That Ms. Soriano told me Severino must have been under pressure from Go to make her give in to his advances because he (Go) knew she was a single parent who could not afford to lose her job, which was a usual technique of a sexual predator like Go who reportedly used it in the past with female employees.[51]
x x x xWenceslao added:x x x x (Underscoring supplied)
- That I knew, with due respect to the memory of Mr. Henry Go, that he and his brother (Respondent Go) were reputed to be womanizers as, in fact, Henry while married impregnated his secretary but who he married eventually after reportedly divorcing his wife.
- That even before I met Ms. Soriano and her joining Digitel, I already knew about Respondent Go's said reputation that reportedly led to his separation from his wife and the resignation of lady employees not only from Digitel but also from other companies he was connected with.
- That it was no surprise therefore when Ms. Soriano complained to me that Go made undeniable advances to her on at least two (2) occasions, to wit:
8.1 Sometime in late August 1999, Ms. Soriano confided to me that in a company sales conference at Manila Midtown Hotel, Respondent Go, who she barely knew then, sat close to her and began a conversation. He immediately and repeatedly dropped his hand on her lap and touched her thighs. She was naturally outraged by such brazenness from which she excused herself and moved away to join other Digitel employees on the dance floor.
8.2 In a party given by a company official, Mr. Policarpio Pau, in November 1999 at his residence in Loyola Heights, Quezon City, obviously with malicious forethought suddenly sat on the sofa�s side while massaging her hand and pretending to be interested in her ring. She removed the ring and gave it to him so he would release her hand. Worse, Go suddenly put his hand under her thigh and moved it as far as he could with clear intention to touch her private parts. According to Ms. Soriano, she was so embarrassed and would have melted if she were a candle because she sensed that Go was speaking in Chinese and telling other guests what he was doing to her.- That Ms. Soriano angrily related to me the above incidents immediately upon arriving home from each of the said occasions because during the time in question, Ms. Soriano and I were again sleeping together.
- That Ms. Soriano was very angry and outraged on both occasions for the humiliation she suffered because Go treated her so cheaply in front of her fellow Digitel executives.[52]
x x x xOn the other hand, petitioners submitted the affidavits of Grace D. Rallos-Bakunawa,[54] Ma. Lourdes B. Claveria,[55] Pau,[56] and Ma. Purisima Y. Velasco,[57] all executed in 2001 and which were priorly presented before the Office of the City Prosecutor. Also submitted were the affidavits of Andrea[58] and Evelyn.[59]
- That Ms. Soriano told me about subsequent events in their office such as when Go visited her in the office to ask why she had been eluding him as if she did not like him at all.
- That, according to Ms. Soriano, it was during that time when she began avoiding Go that she noticed a big change in Mr. Eric Severino's attitude towards her as though he wanted to make her job as miserable and unbearable as he could possibly do because of the following incidents:
13.1 He raised his voice and was virtually shouting at Ms. Soriano during staff meetings with no apparent reason except to embarrass her in front of her colleagues and subordinates. As a result, two members of her staff, namely: Ms. Andrea Arnedo and Ms. Evelyn Indu[c]tivo, became defiant and uncooperative and refused to do the work Ms. Soriano assigned to them;
13.2 Severino refused Ms. Soriano's repeated requests to transfer the two ladies to another department despite her imploring him to understand that the hostility of the two to her made it impossible to accomplish the work she assigned to them;
13.3 Severino became more demanding in imposing work deadlines while denying Ms. Soriano's requests for approval of programs and projects that would enhance the work of her department, for instance, Severino cavalierly disapproved Digitel's Web Magazine that would have been an effective marketing tool;
13.4 Severino denied outright Ms. Soriano's recommendation to promote Ms. Lorraine Javier from a senior supervisory to managerial position without any explanation despite Ms. Soriano's belief that the promotion was not only well deserved but would also improve her staff's morale;
13.5 Their relationship became worse when Severino gave Ms. Soriano's performance a rating of only 60% from 90% a year earlier.[53] (Underscoring supplied)
x x x xPau, Executive Vice President of Digitel, stated:x x x x
- I have never seen Mr. Johnson [Go] shower any female employee, moreso Mariquit with unusual attention or gaze for that matter that would make anyone believe Mariquit's allegations that Mr. Johnson [Go] is interested in her sexually. I couldn't really imagine that, considering Mariquit's age and her being already a grandmother.
- Owing to the character of Mr. Johnson, I wouldn't have entertained the idea that he would harass her nor anyone sexually notwithstanding her claim that she is physically attractive. Further, someone of Mariquit's age and stature would know how to conduct herself to avoid incidents, as she is claiming, unless the provocation would actually come from her.
x x x x (Underscoring supplied)
- I was present during the sales conference at Manila Midtown Hotel in Ermita Manila on August 1999. During this occasion, she was never seated as she described, with Mr. Johnson Go. There were other male executives seated beside her and that I saw her disappear after dinner. I know that being the organizer of the conference, she had a room with her staff at the Midtown. I presumed she slept after that tiring day.
- I was also present at the birthday party of Mr. Jun Pau on 19 November 1999. As my usual behavior in Digitel parties, I would go around to check if people are interacting with each other. It has been more than a month since I left the company, hence, I was excited to chat with most of the people there. I noticed Mariquit somewhat feeling out-of-place with other executives, as usual with her distant affect. I never detected any unusual happenings between Mr. Johnson and her during said party. I even sat in-between Mr[.] Johnson [Go] and Mariquit owing to the space between them in the sofa, while Reby Magtuto was in the single armchair perpendicular to the sofa.
- My farewell party in Digitel, for clarification was on September 4, 1999 and not October 1, 1999 as Mariquit claims. Mr. Johnson [Go] was seated in the middle of the party beside Camilo Tierro, Jun Pau, Isa Alejandrino, Reby Magtuto and myself who would stand up to sing.
- I never saw Mr. Johnson [Go] being seated beside Mariquit. Further, that farewell party was exclusively tendered for me as it was my advance birthday party, which was supposedly planned for October 3. Since I would be in Cebu for a PMAP Conference, I decided to hold it in advance and coincide it with my farewell party.[60]
x x x xFrom the above-quoted statements of affiants Wenceslao and Sta. Clara, it is readily gathered that they are hearsay. The Labor Arbiter thus correctly discredited them as such, as it did correctly observe that Mariquit failed to present a single witness to corroborate her charges. At any rate, why Mariquit, for the first time raised the issue of sexual harassment which was, in the case of Go, allegedly committed on five occasions from May 1999 to February 11, 2000 only on May 28, 2001 when she filed criminal complaints against herein individual petitioners, about 11 months after her resignation or two years after the first alleged occurrence, she did not even proffer the reason therefor.x x x x[61] (Underscoring supplied)
- As an executive officer of Digitel I have been invited to both official as well as social functions/gathering of company officers and employees;
- On 19 November 1999 I organized a party at my residence at Argentina St., Loyola Grand Villas, Quezon City to commemorate my birthday;
- The party was held in the living room, lanai and swimming pool area; However, since it rained during the party; my guests stayed at the living room and lanai area for most of the time; The lanai area and the living room [are] separated by a door which was left open during the party since the piano is located inside the living room; The said rooms are also well lighted since I have two chandeliers in the living room;
- I approximately had sixty guests all officers and employees of Digitel; The party started from 7:30 PM until 12 midnight of the following day;
- Since I am the host of the party, I was all over the place entertaining and seeing to the convenience of everybody specially the senior executive officer, Mr. Johnson Robert Go;
- I did not see any unusual event which took place during the party including the preposterous allegations made by Ms. Mariquit E. Soriano on the alleged indecent advances made against her by Mr. Johnson Go;
- Since the party area is small, anyone can see everyone's activity, any incident activity will definitely be noticed by everybody in the house;
- On May 1999 I was present at the cocktail party held by Digitel on the Summit Lounge of Manila Galleria Suites (MGS); This was organized by the company for reaching its sales target; The function room of MGS can only accommodate 50-60 persons and there were 30-40 persons who attended the said cocktail party; Thus, we could all see each other in the room; As far as I can remember I did not notice any indecent or lascivious act committed by Mr. Johnson Go against Ms. Mariquit Soriano;
- Furthermore, the department of Ms. Soriano is in charge of these functions. She is always busy preparing, organizing and coordinating these functions, hence, she could not have the luxury of socializing with the guests;
- I was also present during the October 1999 party which was held at the residence of Matet Ruiz; I am very familiar with Matet's house since it is very near Digitel's office and we always hold parties there; The area is approximately 40 sq. meters big; Since there were more or less 20-30 persons present, every body was literally very close with each other so everybody can see and notice the activity of the other guests; Again there was no unusual or indecent incident which took place during the said party;
x x x Strictly speaking, there is no time period within which he or she [alleged victim of sexual harassment] is expected to complain through the proper channels. The time to do so may vary depending upon the needs, circumstances, and more importantly, the emotional threshold of the employee.The Labor Arbiter before which Mariquit also cited Philippine Aelous brushed aside the same in this wise:
Private respondent admittedly allowed four (4) years to pass before finally coming out with her employer's sexual impositions. Not many women, especially in this country, are made of the stuff that can endure the agony and trauma of a public, even corporate, scandal. x x x[64]
The ruling in the above-cited case does not squarely apply to the present case. In that [case], the complainant thereat, Ms. Rosalinda C. Cortez, did not resign from her job; she did not undergo psychological treatment; and she was not an executive of the company she worked with.[65]In Philippine Aelous, the therein complainant employee Rosalinda raised the issue of sexual harassment as soon as she had the opportunity to do so. Thus, after the company issued a memorandum terminating her employment in November 1994, she filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter on December 6, 1994, raising the issue of sexual harassment committed four years earlier by her superior who had charged her of committing gross acts of disrespect. The earliest opportunity for her to cry foul thus came only after she was terminated in November 1994.
While it may be true, as the trial court opines[,] "that testimony of employees of a party is 'of course' open to the criticism that they would naturally testify, as far as they possibly could in favor of their employers, and in weighing testimony such a relation between a witness and a party is frequently noticed by the court," it is equally true that the witness is an employee or an overseer of a party is not of itself sufficient to discredit his testimony.[72] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)Justifying her failure to present an eyewitness, Mariquit claimed that they (eyewitnesses) were warned by Digitel of being dismissed from their jobs should they testify in her favor. In support thereof, she presented the affidavit[73] dated June 12, 2002 of Grace L. Murphy, a former classmate at St. Theresa's College in Manila.
Once an employee resigns and his resignation is accepted, he no longer has any right to the job. If the employee later changes his mind, he must ask for approval of the withdrawal of his resignation from his employer, as if he were re-applying for the job. It will then be up to the employer to determine whether or not his service would be continued. If the employer accepts said withdrawal, the employee retains his job. x x x[81]Petitioners fault the appellate court's giving undue credence to the Psychological Evaluation Report made by "Dr. Estrella T. Tiongson-Magno, PhD" dated December 14, 2000 (Magno Report) as it (the appellate court) noted what to it was the NLRC's omission of the "conclusion" in said report that Mariquit's behavioral problems "stemmed from the trauma she experienced confirming that indeed she was a victim of sexual harassment."[82] They claim that the appellate court selectively seized upon portions of the Magno Report and only highlighted the following statements from the Report in its assailed decision:
Summary and ConclusionIn crediting the Magno Report, the appellate court described Dr. Magno's experience in the field of psychology as "extensive and specialized," whereas it found petitioners' witness-affiant Bakunawa to have just a degree in psychology and human resource management background.[84]
She is a good, generous and hardworking person, there is no doubt about this, and she has done her best to provide for the needs of her children. Her achievements in this regard are remarkable and praiseworthy. But she is emotionally immature and her comprehension of human situations in surprisingly shallow ("gullibility is her greatest weakness") for a person of her intelligence and life experience. This explains how she can be easily victimized by an abusive employer.
Diagnosis for MES:
Axis I Major Depression Axis II Narcissistic/Borderline Personality with compulsive and histrionic features Axis III No diagnosis Axis IV Psychosocial Stressors: Sexual Harassment and job loss
Severity: severe[83] (Emphasis by the Court of Appeals).
x x x Worse, the NLRC completely disregarded the findings of the Clinical Psychologist who examined petitioner, Dr. Estrella T. Tiongson-Magno, and selected only those portions of her evaluation report that showed petitioner's emotional dysfunction and omitting Dr. Magno's conclusion that her behavioral problems stemmed from the trauma she experienced confirming that indeed she was a victim of sexual harassment x x x[86] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)Any employee, male or female, may charge an employer or superior with sexual harassment, but the claim must be well substantiated.[87] As reflected above, however, Mariquit's claim does not pass the test of credibility.
x x x x[59] Id. at 124-125. For her part, Evelyn stated:
2. I vigorously deny the allegations therein, the truth of the matter being that:
xxx
(g) As to the allegations against Messrs. Eric Severino and Johnson Go, I can state without batting an eyelash that these imputations are mere fabrications and lies;
(h) Messrs. Eric Severino and Johnson Go are the types of gentlemen who will never touch a 49 year old woman, a grandmother at that with unpredictable and irrational behavior.
(i) It would also be impossible for Mr. Severino to look at the legs much less crotch of Mariquit Soriano during meetings as she had her back turned to us sitting on the far end of the table as if she was not in our presence.
x x x x (Underscoring supplied).
x x x x[60] Id. at 6, 126-129.
3. That I vehemently deny the allegations of Mariquit Soriano in the said paragraph, the truth of the matter being the following:
x x x x
h) I have not heard a single incident or case which would tend to indicate any manifestation of sexual harassment much less acts of lasciviousness on the part of the aforementioned gentlemen committed against any member of the opposite sex;
i) As far as Eric Severino is concerned, I know that during office meetings he maintained decorum and order and never raised his voice to pressure anybody of us;
j) It is absolutely weird however that during meetings, Mariquit Soriano would sit in the farthest part of the table with her back against us as if she did not want to listen to the discussions;
k) It is also a fact that never, and to emphasize never, during her employment with Digitel did Mariquit Soriano ever complain, protest much less file a case against Messrs. Eric Severino and/or Johnson Go for alleged sexual harassment and/or acts of lasciviousness either with the police authorities, labor department or in our company[;]
l) It is also highly impossible, as I know Messrs. Eric Severino and Johnson Go, that they would take sexual interest in a 49 year old woman, who is already a grandmother like Mariquit Soriano and whose demeanor leave much to be desired;
x x x x