SHE said he “touched” her buttocks. He countered that he merely gave it a playful “tap” without malicious intentions.
The investigator’s report described it as a “grab” following a review of footage from closed-circuit TV cameras.
But as far as the Commission on Audit is concerned, such unwanted contact by any other name constitutes indecent behavior punishable under RA 7877 or the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995.
Thus, a male administrative aide was held guilty of sexual harassment against a female co-worker and was meted suspension for one month without pay.
In her complaint, the victim, an administrative officer of the COA, said she felt aggrieved and humiliated after the respondent touched the left side of her buttocks during a billiards competition which was part of the Sportsfest in celebration of the agency’s 120th anniversary celebration.
Her affidavit was supported by a copy of the CCTV video and a sworn statement executed by an employee of the M2 Billiards and Restaurant.
Answering the allegations, the respondent said his action was only part of an interaction with a co-worker and friend because she had been distracting him while he was taking his turn in a game.
He also objected to the use of the word “grabbed” noting that even the complainant only used the term “touched.”
COA chairperson Michael G. Aguinaldo and commissioner Roland C. Pondoc declared an offense was committed regardless of the term used to describe it.
They added that malicious intent is not one of the elements required for a complaint of sexual harassment.
“It is enough that such conduct or behavior adversely interferes with a person’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment, or that the act… might reasonably be expected to cause discrimination, insecurity, discomfort, offense or humiliation to the complainant,” the COA said.
It added that based on the evaluation of the Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI), “whether the term used is “touching” or “grabbing” is immaterial as long as the act is unwarranted.”
The Commission, however, noted that the respondent had been with the agency for 26 years and that he had no prior derogatory record.
Likewise, consideration was extended in his favor because he apologized to the complainant verbally right after the incident, and again in writing, when he answered her allegations.
Instead of dismissal from the service as provided in Section 51(A)(I) of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service and Section 47(a) of COA Resolution No. 2017- 024, respondent was merely suspended without pay for a period of one month.
