AN ACT DECLARING SEXUAL HARASSMENT UNLAWFUL IN

THE EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION OR TRAINING ENVIRONMENT, AND

FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
 Took effect March 5, 1995

 The law does not treat all types of sexual

harassment. It is limited to sexual
harassment that occurs in work, training or
education environment.
 At the core of sexual harassment in the
workplace, as penalized by Republic Act
No. 7877, otherwise known as the Anti-Sexual
Harassment Act of 1995, is abuse of power by
a superior over a subordinate. (Escandor v.
People, G.R. No. 211962, July 6, 2020)
It is committed by employer, employee,
manager, supervisor, agent of the employer,
teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor,
or any other person who, having authority,
influence or moral ascendancy over another
in a work or training or education
environment.
It is committed when the offender demands,
requests or otherwise requires any sexual
favor from the other, regardless of whether
the demand, request or requirement for
submission is accepted by the object of
sexual harassment.
The sexual favor is
(a) made as a condition:
(i) in the hiring or in the employment, re-employment or
continued employment of said individual, or
(ii) in granting said individual favorable compensation, terms
of conditions, promotions, or privileges; or

(b) the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in

limiting, segregating or classifying the employee
which in any way would discriminate, deprive or
diminish employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect said employee;
(2) The above acts would impair the employee's
rights or privileges under existing labor laws;
or

(3) The above acts would result in an

intimidating, hostile, or offensive
environment for the employee.
(1) Against one who is under the care, custody or
supervision of the offender;
(2) Against one whose education, training,
apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted to the
offender;
(3) When the sexual favor is made a condition to the
giving of a passing grade, or the granting of honors
and scholarships, or the payment of a stipend,
allowance or other benefits, privileges, or
consideration; or
(4) When the sexual advances result in an intimidating,
hostile or offensive environment for the student,
trainee or apprentice.
 Clearly, respondent abused the power and
authority he possessed over the
complainants. His sexually laced conduct had
created a hostile and offensive environment
which deeply prejudiced his students. In what
was supposed to be a safe place for them to
learn and develop, they were instead
subjected to unwarranted sexual advances.
(Re: Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr., A.C. No. 5900
(Resolution), April 10, 2019)
1) …authority, influence, or moral-ascendancy over
another;
2) …in a work-related, training-related, or education-
related environment, and
3) …makes a demand, request, or requirement of a
sexual favor. (Escandor v. People, G.R. No. 211962,
July 6, 2020)
 Since Republic Act No. 7877 is a special
criminal statute, the offense of sexual
harassment is malum prohibitum. Thus, in
prosecuting an offender for sexual
harassment, intent is immaterial. Mere
commission is sufficient to warrant a
conviction. (Escandor)
 it is not necessary that these be articulated in
a categorical oral or written statement. It
may be discerned from the acts of the
offender. (Escandor)
1) The employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent
of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach,
trainor, or any other person has authority, influence or
moral ascendancy over another;
2) The authority, influence or moral ascendancy exists in
a working environment;
3) The employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent
of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach,
or any other person having authority, influence or
moral ascendancy makes a demand, request or
requirement of a sexual favor.
What we perceive to have been committed by respondent
judge are casual gestures of friendship and camaraderie,
nothing more, nothing less. In kissing complainant, we
find no indication that respondent was motivated by
malice or lewd design. Evidently, she misunderstood his
actuations and construed them as work-related sexual
harassment under R.A. 7877.
As aptly stated by the Investigating Justice:
"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. (Aquino )
Contrary to the argument of petitioner, the demand of a
sexual favor need not be explicit or stated. ..But it is not
necessary that the 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.” The CSC found, as did the
CA, that even without an explicit demand from petitioner
his act of mashing the breast of AAA was sufficient to
constitute sexual harassment. Moreover, under Section 3
(b) (4) of RA 7877, sexual harassment in an education or
training environment is committed “(w)hen the sexual
advances result in an intimidating, hostile or offensive
environment for the student, trainee or apprentice.”
(BACSIN vs WAHIMAN, G.R. No. 146053, Apr 30, 2008)
Likewise, contrary to Rayala’s claim, 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 the
respondent’s acts result in creating an
intimidating, hostile or offensive
environment for the employee. (Domingo vs
Rayala, GR No. 155831, Feb 18, 2008)
“…it is not necessary that the 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. Holding and squeezing Domingo’s shoulders,
running his fingers across her neck and tickling her ear,
having inappropriate conversations with her, giving her
money allegedly for school expenses with a promise of
future privileges, and making statements with
unmistakable sexual overtones – all these acts of Rayala
resound with deafening clarity the unspoken request for
a sexual favor.” (Rayala)
Respondent was charged with knowledge of
the existence of this law and its contents,
more so because he was a public servant. His
act of grabbing petitioner and attempting to
kiss her without her consent was an
unmistakable manifestation of his intention
to violate laws that specifically prohibited
sexual harassment in the work environment.
(Narvasa vs Sanchez, GR No. 169449, Mar.
26, 2010)
Assuming arguendo that respondent never
intended to violate RA 7877, his attempt to kiss
petitioner was a flagrant disregard of a
customary rule that had existed since time
immemorial – that intimate physical contact
between individuals must be consensual.
Respondent’s defiance of custom and lack of
respect for the opposite sex were more appalling
because he was a married man. Respondent’s
act showed a low regard for women and
disrespect for petitioner’s honor and dignity.
(Narvasa)
 1. To prevent or deter sexual harassment.
2. To provide a procedure for resolution,
settlement or prosecution of sexual
harassment cases.

 Promulgate rules and regulations prescribing the

procedure in the investigation of sexual harassment
cases and providing administrative sanctions.
 Create a committee on decorum and investigation
of sexual harassment cases.
Imprisonment of not less than one (1) month
nor more than six (6) months, or a fine of not
less than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000) nor
more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000),
or both such fine and imprisonment at the
discretion of the court.
Administrative sanctions shall not be a bar to
prosecution in the proper courts for unlawful
acts of sexual harassment. (Sec. 4)
Nothing in this Act shall preclude the victim of
work, education or training-related sexual
harassment from instituting a separate and
independent action for damages and other
affirmative relief. (Sec. 6)