By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
BUBAN VS. DELA PEÑA, G.R. NO. 268399 (JANUARY 24, 2024): EMPLOYER FOUND SOLIDARILY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO CREATE COMMITTEE ON DECORUM AND INVESTIGATION (CODI) AND INVESTIGATE SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMMITTED IN THE WORKPLACE
This case stems from the complaint of Francheska Allen Balaba Buban (Buban) against Xerox Business, Human Resources Manager Rojan Gonzales (Gonzales) and Team Leader Nilo Dela Peňa (Dela Peňa) for sexual harassment, non-payment of salary, payment of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. This stemmed from series of sexual advances by Dela Peňa on Buban on several occasions making his working environment hostile and led to her health to deteriorate specifically causing her anxious and paranoid.
The Labor Arbiter found in favor of Buban rendering Xerox Business solidarily liable in the payment of damages for its failure to create a Committee on Decorum and Investigation and investigate the alleged sexual harassment incident. The Labor Arbiter held that Buban was constructively dismissed and ordered Xerox to pay her moral damages (PHP100,000.00), exemplary damages (Php50,000.00) and her three-day salary. It also ordered the immediate termination of employment of Dela Peňa. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter and even increased the exemplary damages (Php500,000.00) awarded to Buban. On Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, the appellate court affirmed the ruling of the NLRC but modified and reinstated the damages, moral and exemplary, awarded by the Labor Arbiter. Hence, Buban filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
On the procedural matter, Buban raised technicality when Dela Peňa suddenly filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals when the latter did not participate before the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Buban argued that the Court of Appeals erred when it gave due course to Dela Peňa’s Petition for Certiorari when he failed to file a motion for reconsideration which is mandatory before filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court applied the liberal interpretation of the rules and held that technical rules of evidence prevailing in the courts of law shall not be controlling in labor cases as provided under Article 227 (221) of the Labor Code. The Court also held that there are exceptions to the rule of mandatory filing of a motion for reconsideration before filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. One of the exceptions is that the filing of a motion for reconsideration would be useless. The Court held that the arguments of Dela Peňa are identical to the allegations of employer Xerox Business, hence, filing of the same would be redundant and useless.
On the substantive matter, the Supreme Court held found no cogent reason to the reverse the findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals that Xerox was remiss in its duty under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7877 to prevent or deter the commission of acts of sexual harassment and to provide the procedures for the resolution, settlement or prosecution of acts of sexual harassment. The Court further held: “Specifically, it failed to create a committee on decorum and investigation to promptly act upon the allegation of sexual harassment filed by Buban. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 5 of the law, Xerox Business was adjudged solidarily liable with Dela Peňa for payment of damages arising from the acts of sexual harassment committed in the employment.”