1) Judge Acosta is accused of sexually harassing Susan Aquino, the Chief of Legal Staff of the Court of Tax Appeals, on six occasions between November 2000 and February 2001 through unwanted physical contact such as kissing and embracing.
2) Judge Acosta claims the interactions were misinterpreted casual greetings among friends and colleagues.
3) The Court finds no convincing evidence that Judge Acosta's actions constituted sexual harassment under the law or violated judicial ethics. While his behavior was inappropriate, it did not appear to be motivated by lust or ill intent. The Court exonerates Judge Acosta but admonishes him to avoid similar conduct going forward.
1) Judge Acosta is accused of sexually harassing Susan Aquino, the Chief of Legal Staff of the Court of Tax Appeals, on six occasions between November 2000 and February 2001 through unwanted physical contact such as kissing and embracing.
2) Judge Acosta claims the interactions were misinterpreted casual greetings among friends and colleagues.
3) The Court finds no convincing evidence that Judge Acosta's actions constituted sexual harassment under the law or violated judicial ethics. While his behavior was inappropriate, it did not appear to be motivated by lust or ill intent. The Court exonerates Judge Acosta but admonishes him to avoid similar conduct going forward.
Original Description:
Crim2
Original Title
42. Atty. Susan m. Aquino v Hon. Ernesto d. Acosta
1) Judge Acosta is accused of sexually harassing Susan Aquino, the Chief of Legal Staff of the Court of Tax Appeals, on six occasions between November 2000 and February 2001 through unwanted physical contact such as kissing and embracing.
2) Judge Acosta claims the interactions were misinterpreted casual greetings among friends and colleagues.
3) The Court finds no convincing evidence that Judge Acosta's actions constituted sexual harassment under the law or violated judicial ethics. While his behavior was inappropriate, it did not appear to be motivated by lust or ill intent. The Court exonerates Judge Acosta but admonishes him to avoid similar conduct going forward.
1) Judge Acosta is accused of sexually harassing Susan Aquino, the Chief of Legal Staff of the Court of Tax Appeals, on six occasions between November 2000 and February 2001 through unwanted physical contact such as kissing and embracing.
2) Judge Acosta claims the interactions were misinterpreted casual greetings among friends and colleagues.
3) The Court finds no convincing evidence that Judge Acosta's actions constituted sexual harassment under the law or violated judicial ethics. While his behavior was inappropriate, it did not appear to be motivated by lust or ill intent. The Court exonerates Judge Acosta but admonishes him to avoid similar conduct going forward.
ACOSTA R sat on his chair and covered his face with his hands. Thereafter, Aquino left A.M. No. CTA-01-1 April 2, 2002 crying and locked herself inside a comfort room. After that incident, R went to her office and tossed a note stating, sorry, it SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. wont happen again.
Facts: Atty. Aquino charged JudgeAcosta with sexual harassment under R.A. 7877 and 6 incidents: violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and CPR. Nov. 21, 2000- Complainant, Chief of the Legal and Technical Staff of the CTA, reported for work after her vacation in the US, bringing gifts for the 3 judges of Case was referred to the CA for IRR. IRR was then submitted to the SC. the CTA, including R. Later that afternoon, R shook her hand, pulled her towards him and kissed her on the cheek. Rs defense to the 6 incidences of Sexual harassment: (1) quite unlikely that complainant would ask him to go to her office on such Dec 28, 2000- While R was on leave, he called her saying he will get something in date in order to give him a pasalubong. her office. He entered her room, greeted her (Merry Christmas) and then (2) could not have happened as he was then on official leave. embraced her and kissed her, to which she freed herself by pushing him away. (3), he went to the various offices of the CTA to extend New Years greetings to She then filed an affidavit to prove he was in her room that day. the personnel. He also greeted Aquino with a casual buss on her cheek and gave her a calendar. In turn, she also greeted him. January, 2001-R phoned her, asking if she could see him in his chambers; tried to (4) When the bill was finally approved that particular day, he in jubilation and in kiss her again but she evaded. the presence of other people, gave Aquino a spontaneous peck on her cheek. She did not seem to complain then and even congratulated him. (Justice ka na 4 Weeks later: after the Senate approved the proposed bill expanding the Judge!) jurisdiction of the CTA, while he and her companions were congratulating and (5) He did not call complainant to harass her, but to discuss with her and kissing each other, R suddenly placed his arms around her shoulders and kissed Elizabeth Lozano, HRMO III, and Elsie T. Forteza, Administrative Officer, the her. health plan for the CTA officers and employees. The fact that such meeting took place was confirmed by a Certification issued by Lozano. Feb 14, 2001 - Respondent called complainant, requesting her to go to his office (6) He merely attempted to kiss her on the cheek to greet her on Valentines Day again. She asked Ruby Lanuza, a clerk in the Records Section, to accompany her, and held her to keep her balance; he was embarrassed when she rejected him. but he was not at his chambers when they arrived. Stunned at the thought that she might misinterpret his gesture, he sent her a short note of apology. Feb 15,2001- R called her and asked her to see him in his office to discuss the Senate bill on the CTA. She requested Ruby Lanuza, a clerk in the Records Addt'l One: The structure of his office, being seen through a transparent glass Section, to accompany her, who agreed but suggested that they should act as if divider, makes it impossible for anyone to commit any improper conduct inside. they met by accident in Rs office. R kept glancing at Ruby while she was there; once she left, he approached CA ruled in favor of R: Aquino saying, me gusto akong gawin sa iyo kahapon pa. Thereupon, he tried failed to show by convincing evidence that the acts of Judge Acosta in to grab her, held her arms tightly, pulled her towards him and kissed her. She greeting her with a kiss on the cheek, in a 'beso-beso' fashion, were pushed him away, then slumped on a chair trembling. carried out with lustful and lascivious desires or were motivated by malice or ill-motive. employees of the Court of Tax Appeals, otherwise, his conduct may be construed Also, these were during festive occasions or moments of celebration. as tainted with impropriety. WON Judge Acosta is guilty for harassment? Held: NO. Administrative complaints against members of the judiciary are viewed by this Court with utmost care, for proceedings of this nature affect not only the reputation of the respondents concerned, but the integrity of the entire judiciary as well.
No convincing evidence to sustain complainants charges.
(1) What have been committed by respondent judge are casual gestures of friendship and camaraderie, nothing more, nothing less. In kissing complainant, there was no indication that respondent was motivated by malice or lewd design. "A mere casual buss on the cheek is not a sexual conduct or favor and does not fall within the purview of sexual harassment under R.A. No. 7877 An element of sexual harassment lacking in the case at bar is a demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor, which Complainant failed to establish with proof or even allege. From the records on hand, there is no showing that respondent judge demanded, requested or required any sexual favor from complainant in exchange for favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotion or privileges specified under S3 of R.A. 7877.
(2) Neither did Atty. Aquino establish by convincing evidence that the busses on her cheek, which she considers as sexual favors, discriminated against her continued employment, or resulted in an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment. In fact, complainant continued to perform her work in the office with the usual normalcy. Obviously, the alleged sexual favor, if there ever was, did not interfere with her working condition.
(3) Judge Acosta's actuations did not violate the Canons of Judicial Ethics or the Code of Professional Responsibility.
DECISION: exonerate respondent from the charges herein, however, he is
admonished not to commit similar acts against complainant or other female
