47 SAMAHAN NG MGA BABAE SA HUDIKATURA (SAMABAHU), o Mrs.

Ripdos : on April 22, 2011, she and Herradura

complainant, vs. JUDGE CESAR O. UNTALAN, Regional Trial Court, remained at Branch 145 while their office mates went out for
Branch 149, Makati City, respondent. lunch. Respondent suddenly arrived and shouted for her to
come inside the chambers. She was made to sit infront of
A.M. No. RTJ-13-2363 | 25 February 2015
respondent's table while respondent looked angrily at her.
Anti Sexual Harassment She then asked "Bakit po, Judge?" and respondent inquired
if her husband was around. When she replied that her
DOCTRINE: Under Section 3 of A.M. No. 03-03-13-SC (Re: Rule on husband, who is an employee of the Makati City Hall
Administrative Procedure in Sexual Harassment Cases and Guidelines on detailed at Branch 145, was not there, respondent quickly
Proper Work Decorum in the Judiciary), workrelated sexual harassment is stood up saying "pahalik" while holding her cheeks. She
committed by an official or employee in the Judiciary who, having authority, hurriedly rose from her seat and told respondent she was
influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work environment, going out but he also stood up, saying "sandali! pahalik ulit."
demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, Respondent embraced her and kissed her on the neck and
regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission chest while rubbing his body against hers. She tried to push
is accepted by the latter. It is committed when "the sexual favor is made as him away but respondent knelt down with one hand clasping
a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-employment or continued her waist while the other was on her breast. Respondent's
employment of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable face was slumped on her womb while her hand was on her
compensation, terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the breast; his body seemed to be "nanggigigil."
refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or
classifying the employee which in any way would discriminate, deprive or After, Ripdos claimed that respondent threatened her with a
diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said low performance rating and transfer to the Office of the
employee." Clerk of Court. Respondent declared that he intended to
write this Court to request for her removal and attach her
Administrative complaints against members of the judiciary are viewed by performance rating with "Satisfactory" grade. When she
this Court with utmost care, for proceedings of this nature affect not only retorted that she will just respond to such charge, he got
the reputation of the respondents concerned, but the integrity of the entire mad and told her she is hard-headed and that he will talk to
judiciary as well. Considering that the complainants failed to present the judge who will replace him at Branch 145 to give her a
substantial evidence to prove the alleged sexual advances committed low rating. At this point, she told respondent that he knows
against them by respondent, elementary justice dictates that he be what he did to her. Upon hearing this, respondent changed
exonerated from the said charge. his mood. Respondent then warned her not to complain to
the administration because no one will believe her, she is
FACTS: just an employee and her enemy is a Judge and he can
have her removed.
 Office of Chief Justice received an unsigned letter on April 18,
o Herradura: respondent pinched her breast twice while she
2013, purportedly written by a group of female court employees
was working infront of the computer and respondent was
styled as "Samahan ng mga Babae sa Hudikatura" (SAMABAHU),
standing behind her. When she asked respondent why, the
charging Judge Untalan of Makati RTC with sexual harassment
latter did not answer and just left. She felt shaken and later
 Letter was referred to OCA which dispatched 4 lawyers to conduct
told everybody in Branch 146 and her office and Atty. Danilo
discreet investigation and submit a report
Lacson. Sometime thereafter, respondent called her to his
 2 employees of Makati RTC executed their affidavit-complaint chambers and told him that her office mates have many
stories about her. She repeatedly denied it but respondent
 kept on saying she was lying. Respondent then said the In this case, the OCA and the Investigating Justice found credible the
reason he called for her was to tell her he will give her a low allegation of Ripdos that respondent made sexual advances on her despite
performance rating if she will not apologize right away, but respondent's assertion that such incident could not have happened
she told him she does not know what she has to apologize considering that the date stated in her Affidavit was Good Friday, a regular
for. When respondent insisted he will still give her a low holiday and hence all government offices including courts are closed.
rating, she replied that she will just fight it and told him he Notably, it was only during the investigation proper at the CA that Ripdos
was being unfair and unjust. Realizing that she will not corrected herself. OCA team gave Ripdos a copy of her Affidavit so she
apologize to him, he asked how the matter was going to end can read and review the same. When the team returned on June 17,
and she told him it was him who is more broadminded. 2013, Ripdos said she was satisfied with her affidavit and did not make any
 OCA: allegations far from being figments of the imagination as the correction on the date of the alleged incident stated therein. Her claim that
complainants described in detail their experience with respondent; it was pure oversight on her part is thus difficult to believe, and so with her
Case docketed as regular administrative matter and referred to CA’ silence for two years when, except for Herradura, she had not complained
Untalan placed under preventive suspension and directed to file his to the proper authorities about respondent's improper act.
comment to be submitted to the CA Investigating Justice
 Untalan : denied all the allegations; standard of substantial OCA failed to consider the fact that since respondent had no scheduled
evidence is not met in this case considering that the alleged date hearing at Branch 145, where he was merely a Pairing Judge, and with his
mentioned by Ripdos in her affidavit, April 22, 2011, was in fact hands full of hearings morning and afternoon at Branch 149, it was unlikely
Good Friday; OCA team's findings were apparently based on that on one Friday of April, respondent would momentarily escape to
hearsay from unnamed sources Branch 145 at lunch break to commit the act of sexual harassment imputed
 CA Justice Bueser : guilty beyond reasonable doubt of sexual to him by Ripdos. Meanwhile, Atty. Tang-Togado clarified that while she
harassment as he exercised moral ascendancy over the leaves the canteen after buying her lunch, with respondent there still
complaining female court employees. He found the testimonies eating, the latter usually returns to their office (Branch 149) after eating his
given by Ripdos and Herradura credible and that their silence for lunch, then takes a nap, comes out at 1:00 to 1:30 p.m. to ask about his
two years before filing the present complaint can be explained by scheduled hearings for the day, and conducts hearing again at 2:00 p.m.
their fear of losing their jobs. Untalan denial cannot prevail over the
witnesses' credible testimony. Under Section 3 of A.M. No. 03-03-13-SC (Re: Rule on Administrative
Procedure in Sexual Harassment Cases and Guidelines on Proper Work
ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent conviction must be upheld Decorum in the Judiciary), workrelated sexual harassment is committed by
an official or employee in the Judiciary who, having authority, influence or
RULING: NO moral ascendancy over another in a work environment, demands,
requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving
of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted
the allegations in his complaint with substantial evidence, i.e., that amount
by the latter. It is committed when "the sexual favor is made as a condition
of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
in the hiring or in the employment, re-employment or continued
justify a conclusion. Further, it is settled that the assessment of the
employment of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable
credibility of witnesses is a function primarily lodged in the Investigating
compensation, terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the
Justice. The findings of investigating magistrates are generally given great
refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or
weight by the Court by reason of the unmatched opportunity to see the
classifying the employee which in any way would discriminate, deprive or
deportment of the witnesses as they testified
diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said
employee."
In this case, while respondent exercised moral ascendancy over Ripdos
and Herradura, his subordinates at Branch 145 where he had temporarily
presided as Pairing Judge at the time, the alleged sexual advances by
respondent were not proven with moral certainty. We find that the totality of
evidence failed to convince that respondent committed the acts imputed
against him.

This Court has stressed that an anonymous complaint is always received

with great caution, originating as it does from an unknown author. But such
nature of the complaint does not always justify its outright dismissal for
being baseless or unfounded, as it may easily be verified and may, without
much difficulty, be substantiated by other competent evidence.

In defense of respondent, his Branch Clerk together with three of

his female subordinates and another employee assigned at Branch 145,
who were listed in the letter-complaint as "victims" of respondent,
submitted their respective affidavits and testified on his good character,
categorically denying having been sexually harassed at any time by
respondent.

Based on the foregoing findings, there is no sufficient evidence to create a

moral certainty that Judge Cesar O. Untalan committed the acts
complained of.

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Cesar O. Untalan is hereby

EXONERATED of the charges against him. The present administrative
complaint is accordingly DISMISSED for lack of sufficient factual basis.