CERTIFIED TRUE COPY (vision Clerk of Court hird Division, Sure SO GE RPMS SEP 08 2000 Ao Republic of the Philippines SEP 10 2020 og “TOK 4 Supreme Court ie Manila THIRD DIVISION LBC EXPRESS-VIS, INC., G.R. No. 217101 Petitioner, Present: LEONEN, J., Chairperson, GESMUNDO, CARANDANG, ZALAMEDA, and DELOS SANTOS,” JJ. -versus- MONICA C. PALCO, Promulgated: Respondent. pene 12, 2020 DECISION LEONEN, J.: An employee is considered constructively dismissed if he or she was sexually harassed by her superior and her employer failed to act on his or her complaint with prompt and sensitivity. This Court resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari! assailing the Decision? and Resolution? of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the / “Additional Member per 8.0. No. 2753, Rollo, pp. 13-62. 2d. at 66-88. The May 13, 2014 Decision was peaned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L.. Delos Santos and Pamela Ann Abella Maxino of the Special Nineteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu Cit. * Id. at 91-92. The February 10, 2015 Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Pamela Ann Abella Maxino of the Former Special Nineteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu CityDecision 2 GR. No. 217101 National Labor Relations Commission’s finding that the employer company, LBC Express-Vis Ine., is liable for constructive dismissal On January 16, 2009, Monica C. Palco (Palco) started working for LBC Express-Vis Inc. (LBC) as a customer associate in its Gaisano Danao Branch (LBC Danao). The Branch’s Team Leader and Officer-in-Charge, Arturo A, Batucan (Batucan), endorsed her application for the post and acted as her immediate superior.4 While employed at LBC, Palco had initially noticed that Batucan would often flirt with her, which made her uncomfortable. Later, Batucan started sexually harassing her. Batucan’s undisputed acts are detailed as follow: 1. As weeks passed, she noticed something in the way respondent- Arturo A. Batucan stared and smiled at her. She also sensed some meaning in the way he talked to her, though she initially ignored these and just tried to focus on her job. 2. At one time he offered to lend her money, which she refused, not wanting to be indebted to him. 3. There was likewise an instance when he secretly gave her chocolate, which she felt uncomfortable about, there being no special occasion then. 4. Respondent-Arturo A. Batucan’s actions grew bolder everyday|sic] ‘Whenever he approached her while working, he found ways to hold her hand or put his hand on her lap, if not, on her shoulder. 5. Then, the time came when he started to kiss her on the cheek in a joking manner, 6. On certain occasions, he pulled the strap of her bra, which made her feel really uncomfortable. When she tried to rebuke him on such, he would just tell her that it was a joke. 7. ‘There was also a time when he joked about making a baby with her. He told her that if she will get married someday, he wants to join with her husband in making the baby. She just laughed it off, but she knew there ‘was something wrong with the joke. The final straw happened at around 8:00 a.m. on May 1, 2010. That morning, Batucan sneaked in on Palco while she was in a comer counting money. Palco was caught by surprise and exclaimed, “Kuyawa nako nimo sir, oy!” (You scared me, sit!). Batucan then held her on her hips and attempted to kiss her lips. However, Palco was able to shield herself. Sd. at67, 5 dat 67-68, fDecision 3 G.R. No. 217101 Batucan then tried a second time and was able to kiss Palco’s lips before she could react. Batucan told Palco that he was just happy that day and then proceeded to wipe her lips. Palco, however, could not stop him. Thereafter, Batucan asked her if it was okay for him to go to the LBC Camotes Branch on Monday, as though asking for her permission and treating her like a girlfriend, She told him not to repeat what he had done and threatened to tell his wife about it. Palco felt angry and afraid.® On the evening of the following day, a Sunday, Batucan texted Palco asking her to report early for work the next day to prepare for the arrival of a certain Ms. Ponce. Aftaid of what Batucan might do next, Paleo excused herself and suggested that her co-employee take her place, explaining that she might not come in for work.? The next day, despite being repulsed by Batucan, Palco still forced herself to go to work. She was relieved when Batucan left with Ms. Ponce at 11:00 a.m. to visit the LBC Camotes Branch. However, on May 4, 2010, she did not come in for work because she was sick, and was still bothered by the incident.® On May 5, 2010, she reported the incident to the LBC Head Office in Lapu Lapu City. She had a resignation letter prepared in case management would not act on her complaint. Acting on her complaint, management advised her to request for a transfer to another team while they investigated the matter? On May 8, 2010, Palco returned to the LBC Head Office with her mother and submitted her formal complaint against Batucan. Later, they proceeded to the police station to report the incident.!° On May 14, 2010, sensing that management did not immediately act on her complaint, Palco resigned. She asserted that she was forced to quit since she no longer felt safe at work." On June 15, 2010, Batucan was served a copy of a Notice to Explain.'? On July 20, 2010, LBC held the administrative hearing for the incident.'?_On the same day, Palco filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal against the company. $ 14.a68. 7 Jd a6. a oid ' id 2 ia ats a) fDecision 4 G.R. No. 217101 On September 27, 2010, the area head of LBC Cebu sent a letter addressed to Batucan contaii ing a suspension with last warning: This administrative action is taken on the account of the complaint on immoral act with you [sic] teammate, Ms. Monica Palco of which you were required to submit a valid explanation why sanction should not be imposed against you. This aggravated the company by facing a case charged with illegal dismissal at NLRC Cebu. After thorough consideration and evaluation of the case, the company finds it adequate cause to render you answerable for the aforementioned conduct. This Office hereby sites you for the following infraction categorized under our Code of Conduct as Major Offense to wit: Against Persons: a, Immoral act or any form of indecency within company premises or work assignment, b. Any form of sexual harassment. Accordingly, your attention is hereby called to this instance; you are directed to serve a SUSPENSION for a period of sixty (60) days without pay with LAST WARNING effective immediately. ‘You are further admonished against a repetition of this omission. For your information and strict compliance LEONARDO V. LIBRADILLA (signed)!* On October 18, 2010, Palco filed a Complaint for sexual harassment before the Danao City Prosecutor’s Office.!> The Labor Arbiter, in its Decision dated June 29, 2011, ruled in favor of Palco: WHEREFORE, co-respondents LBC Express-VIS, Inc, and Arturo Batucan are hereby ORDERED solidarily to immediately pay complainant Monica C. Palco the following: Backwages. se Php 91,000.00 Separation pay... 14,000.00 ‘Moral Damages. 200,000.00 Exemplary Damages, 30,000.00 Total. Php 355,000.00 Attorney’s fees (10%) . 35,000.00 Grand Total cee 390,500.00 1d, at 242, Id. at 69,Decision 5 GR. No. 217101 SO ORDERED." The National Labor Relations Commission, in its May 31, 2012 Decision"’ affirmed with modification the Labor Arbiter’s decision but reduced the amount of moral damages to P50,000.00.'* The Court of Appeals, in its March 13, 2014 Decision’? affirmed the National Labor Relations Commission. It denied LBC’s Motion for Reconsideration? LBC thus filed this Petition”! maintaining that: (1) “the findings are grounded entirely on speculation [;}” (2) “the inference made is manifestly mistaken [;]” (3) “the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts [;]” and (4) “the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed but the parties, which... would justify a different conclusion.” Furthermore, it raised that “a period of four (4) months does not even constitute an unreasonable period to resolve a case of such nature and gravity as one for sexual harassment.”?> Subsequently, Palco filed a Comment,” and LBC filed its Reply. 5 Petitioner mainly argues that it should not be held liable for constructive dismissal. It insists that it did not commit any act of discrimination, insensibility, or disdain towards respondent. Neither did it establish a harsh, hostile or unfavorable work environment for her.?° Citing Verdadero v. Barney Autolines Group of Companies Transport, Inc." petitioner argues that it cannot be held liable for the hostile work environment that respondent experienced because it was Batucan, who committed the acts subject of her complaint. It points out that Batucan was a mere team leader, a co-employee, who had no power to dismiss, suspend, or discipline respondent.** Petitioner did not know of, participate, or consent to Batucan’s acts and only learned of his acts after respondent reported it "Id. at 176-177. "1d. at 66-88, ® Id, at 91-92. 2 Id at 13-53. 2 td. at 13. 2 datas. * Id. at 673-691 2 Id. at 756-778, 1d. at 33, ® 693 Phil. 646 (2012) [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division} 8 Rollo, p.33, % Td. at 36.