DOMINGO V. RAYALA (ADMINISTRATIVE, REMEDIAL, JUDICIAL ETHICS)

Rayala accuses the Solicitor General of forum shopping because it files a motion for reconsideration of the decision on CA-GR SP No. 61026 and then filed a comment in GR 155840 before this Court.

We do not agree.

FORUM SHOPPING is an act of a party, against an adverse judgment or order has been rendered in one forum, of seeking and possibly securing a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari. It consists of filing multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.

There is forum shopping when the following concur:

1. identity of the parties or at least of the parties who represent the same interest on both actions;
2. identity of the rights asserted and relief prayed for, as the latter is founded on the same set of facts; and
3. identity of the two preceding particulars such that any judgment rendered in the other action will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration or will constitute litis pendentia.

When the Republic opted to file a motion for reconsideration, it was merely exercising a right. That Rayala and Domingo had by then already filed cases before the SC did not take away this right. Thus, when this Court directed the Republic to file its Comment on Rayala's petition, it had to comply even if it had an unresolved motion for reconsideration with the CA, lest it be cited for contempt.

As to the substantial issue, RA 7877 defines SEXUAL HARASSMENT as follows:

Section 1. Forms of Sexual Harassment - Sexual harassment may be committed in any of the following forms;

1. overt sexual advances;
2. unwelcome or improper gesture of affection;
3. request or demand for sexual favors including but not limited to going out on dates, outing, or the like for the same purpose;
4. any other act or conduct of a sexual nature or for purposes of sexual gratification which is generally annoying, disgusting, or offensive to the victim.

Rayala insisted that his acts do not constitute sexual harassment because Domingo did not allege in her complaint that there was a demand, request, or requirement of a sexual favor as a condition for her continued employment or for her promotion to a higher position.

Respondent's insistence is unconvincing.

Basic in the law of public officers is the THREE-FOLD LIABILITY RULE, which states that the wrongful acts or omissions of a public officer may give rise to civil, criminal, and administrative liability. An action for each can proceed independently of the others. This rule applies with full force to sexual harassment.

The law penalizing sexual harassment in our jurisdiction is RA 7877. The CA correctly ruled that Rayala's culpability is not to be determined solely on the basis of RA 7877 because he is charged with the administrative offense, not the criminal infraction of sexual harassment. It should be enough that the CA, along with the Investigating Committee and the Office of the President, found substantial evidence to support the administrative charge.

Yet, even if we were to test Rayala's acts strictly by the standards set in RA 7877, he would still be administratively liable. It is true that this calls for a demand, request, or requirement of a sexual favor. but it is not necessary that such demand, request, or requirement of a sexual favor be articulated in a categorical oral or written statement. It may be discerned, with equal certitude from the acts of the offender.

Likewise, it is not essential that the demand, request, or requirement be made as a condition for continued employment or for promotion to a higher position. It is enough that respondent's acts result in creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee, which was clearly manifested by the fact that Domingo filed for leave of absence and requested transfer to another unit.