THIRD DIVISION

DIGITEL* TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., JOHNSON ROBERT L. GO** and ERIC J. SEVERINO,*** Petitioners, - versus - MARIQUIT SORIANO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 166039 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ. Promulgated: June 26, 2006

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

In issue in the present Petition for Review[1] is whether respondent, Mariquit Soriano (Mariquit), was forced to resign, due to professional and sexual harassment, thus amounting to constructive dismissal.

The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) held in the negative. The Court of Appeals held otherwise.

From the records of the case, the following antecedent facts are culled:

In the third quarter of 1998, petitioner Digitel Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (Digitel) hired Mariquit, then of 48 summers, a Bachelor of Science in Nutrition graduate from the University of the Philippines and a graduate school student of De La Salle University (she had not submitted her thesis), as Director for Market and Communications effective August 15, 1998.

Digitel’s co-petitioners Senior Vice President for Business Division Eric J. Severino (Severino) and Senior Executive Vice President Johnson Robert L. Go (Go) were Mariquit’s immediate superior and next higher superior, respectively.

Working under Mariquit were Evelyn P. Inductivo (Evelyn), Manager of the Promotion Section, Andrea S. Arnedo (Andrea), Manager of the Corporate and Planning Information Section, and Joselito Macachor (Macachor), Ad and Promo Manager.[2]

In the Performance Review conducted by Digitel for the period of August 17, 1998 up to February 15, 1999,[3] Mariquit obtained for her first six months of work a rating of 92% (Above Average).

Mariquit later had a rift with Macachor regarding an advertisement error. She thus sought his termination through petitioner Severino. To her dismay, Severino merely arranged for the transfer of Macachor to another department.

Mariquit’s performance soon began to deteriorate. The Performance Review[4] for the period of April 1, 1999 up to April 1, 2000 showed that she obtained a rating of 60% (Average) with the following notes from petitioner Severino:

REVIEW OF OVERALL PERFORMANCE:

(Special comments on performance in particular work areas, overall performance and development under the covered period.)

Clearly, Ms. Soriano possesses the requisite traits to be successful in her responsibility areas. The overall performance of the department assigned to her in both quantitative and qualitative aspects, will increase significantly with Ms. Soriano’s commitment to focus on output expectations.

TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT:

(Please comment on the staff member’s training and development needs in the year to come, taking into consideration his/her strengths and areas for improvement.)

Ms. Soriano should endeavor to overcome whatever residual effects the P. Macachor situation caused. She should return to her overall sunny and cheerful disposition. This will significantly contribute to the positive department work atmosphere with improved performance as a result.[5] (Emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied)

Apparently in an attempt to shift the blame on the unfavorable evaluation made on her, Mariquit gave unfavorable evaluation of her two remaining managers, Evelyn and Andrea.

In a Memorandum of June 27, 2000[6] addressed to Severino, Evelyn questioned the basis of her rating and charged Mariquit of “harassing and framing-up her very own managers.” And she also charged Mariquit of violating company rules and regulations.[7]

For her part Andrea, in a Memorandum of May 15, 2000[8] also addressed to Severino, challenged the factual basis of her poor performance rating and appealed for a new evaluation, she attributing as possible motive of Mariquit her “hatred, prejudice, revenge and a desire to get rid” of her.[9]

Mariquit’s personal conflicts with her two managers continued, prompting her to also demand the termination of their services.[10] As in the case of Macachor, the management retained them, however.

Mariquit later filed on June 27, 2000 a letter of resignation bearing the date June 28, 2000, to take effect at the closing of office hours on June 30, 2000.[11] Severino acknowledged receipt of the letter of resignation which Mariquit left in his office.[12] Severino thereafter forwarded the letter to the Human Resources Department where it was stamped “received” on June 28, 2000.[13]

On August 22, 2000, Mariquit executed a Deed of Quitclaim and Release[14] acknowledging receipt from Digitel of the sum of P97,560.02, and declaring therein that her resignation on June 30, 2000 was of her own free will and that in consideration of the said amount, she was releasing and forever discharging Digitel, its officers, managers or representatives or successors from all claims or cause in connection with her employment therewith.

About five months after her execution of the Deed of Quitclaim and Release or in January 2001, on the intercession of Mariquit’s friend Emma Teodoro (Emma), Go and Mariquit, together with Emma, met during which Mariquit is said to have pleaded for financial assistance. Go thus referred her to Digitel Executive Vice President Policarpio B. Pau, Jr. (Pau).[15] Pau was to later relate what transpired when Mariquit went to see him.

Eleven months after her resignation letter was filed or on May 28, 2001, Mariquit filed criminal complaints against petitioners Go and Severino,[16] for violation of R.A. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Law) and/or Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (Acts of Lasciviousness), before the Quezon City Prosecutors Office which referred the complaints to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

The NBI recommended to the City Prosecutor the filing of a case for sexual harassment against petitioner Go. The City Prosecutor later dismissed Mariquit’s complaints but, on her motion for reconsideration, it issued a Resolution finding probable cause to hale Go to court for acts of lasciviousness.[17] Go appealed the Resolution to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

In Pau’s affidavit dated July 6, 2001 which Go submitted in connection with Mariquit’s criminal complaint against him, Pau gave the following account of what transpired during his meeting with Mariquit after Go had, as stated above, referred her to him.

x x x x

14. Sometime in January 2001 Ms. Soriano and her son went to my office; She told me that she had dinner with Mr. Johnson [Go] and a common friend and that Mr. Johnson [Go] told her to see me;

15. On my part, I was already expecting that this was what Mr. Johnson [Go] and I had agreed in principle earlier – to extend financial assistance, for humanitarians [sic], to Ms. Soriano;

16. To my surprise, Ms. Soriano told me that she was advised by her lawyer to explore means in settling her case with Mr. Johnson [Go]. She then told me that she needs money to: (a) send her children abroad, (b) to start a business of her own and (c) to pay the fees of her lawyers; Based on her insinuations I had the impression that she wanted millions of pesos;

17. Clearly, she had a wrong impression and it appeared to me that she is extorting money from the company; To end our conversation, I told her that if that is what she wanted I have no authority to grant the same, what the company intended was to give her a separation pay, even though she is not entitled to it; I also told her that maybe she has misunderstood the humanitarian gesture taken by the company; Thereafter, she already left the office.

x x x x[18] (Underscoring supplied)

About one and a half years after she filed her letter of resignation or on December 20, 2001, Mariquit filed a complaint[19] for illegal dismissal against petitioners Digitel, Go and Severino before the NLRC, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 12-06571-2001. During the initial mandatory conference which took place on January 23, 2002, she clarified that her cause of action was for “constructive dismissal,”[20] alleging that she was harassed by herein individual petitioners to thus compel her to resign from Digitel.

By Decision of April 24, 2003,[21] the Labor Arbiter, finding insufficient Mariquit’s evidence to support her claim that she was forced to resign, held that she voluntarily resigned:

The factual background of this case clearly shows that complainant voluntarily resigned from her employment. We sympathize with her but we cannot sustain her contention that she was constructively dismissed. With complainant’s educational and professional background, it would be absurd to assume that she did not understand the import of her own words and the consequences of her own acts of voluntary resignation.

Complainant’s submission that she was “forced to resign” because of the way she was sexually and professionally harassed by respondents Eric J. Severino and Johnson Robert L. Go were not sufficiently established by substantial, concrete and credible evidence.

The affidavit of Ms. Sta. Clara [submitted by Mariquit] is purely hearsay evidence. Her statements do not even qualify as part of the res gestae. Ms. Sta. Clara was not personally present during the times that respondent Go allegedly poked, several times, at complainant’s private parts. Neither was she physically present when respondent Severino was allegedly staring at complainant’s crotch and made suggestive remarks to the latter. She, therefore, could not concretely, credibly nor substantially testify as to those facts or circumstances that she acquired through her own perception or organs of sense. Her affidavit does not establish the truth of the facts stated therein.

The affidavit of Mr. Frank Wenceslao [also submitted by Mariquit] is not only telling, so to speak; it is also highly suspect. It is likewise hearsay, as that of Ms. Sta. Clara’s. It must be taken with utmost precaution. It should be carefully scrutinized. Mr. Wenceslao knew that respondent Go and his brother Henry were “reputed to be womanizers.” Why then would he (Wenceslao) encourage the mother of his own love child to apply and accept a job offered by respondent company knowing fully well that she, with whom he was again sleeping together at that time, would be working with and for Mr. Go who has a “questionable reputation” with women? Why would he have prevailed upon complainant who already wanted to resign from her job during those periods that she was being allegedly professionally and sexually harassed? His testimony is that of an “interested person” and should thus be rejected.

Complainant’s own allegation, although they are so detailed, appear incredible if not downright puny. An analysis of her statements shows that her own conclusion that she was being sexually and professionally harassed was on the basis of her own suppositions, conjectures, and surmises. Some of her statements are inconsistent. She could not satisfactorily explain her allegation that she was consistently professionally harassed by respondent Severino. The latter’s alleged words: “How come you claim you know so much yet nothing ever gets done in your department?” do not jurisprudentially constitute nor clearly establish “professional harassment.” Aside from these words, the complainant could only venture to allege instances in general and vague terms.

As to the facts allegedly constituting “sexual harassment” advanced by Go and Severino, after an objective analysis over their assertions as stated in their respective counter-affidavits and further considering the other supporting documents attached to the respondents’ pleadings, it is found that these far out weigh the complainant’s own evidence.[22] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

The Labor Arbiter also observed:

One last note: During the initial mandatory conference on January 23, 2003, while the respective parties’ counsels and the undersigned were discussing on some matters, complainant who was seated opposite respondent Severino discreetly showed him her middle finger (the “dirty finger” sign) and later, took his cellular phone which he placed on the table and banged it on the table. Mr. Severino then asked the undersigned if it would be possible, at the next hearing, to have someone officially record and take note of the deportment of the parties during the hearings. When the undersigned asked what for, respondent Severino narrated what had just transpired between him and the complainant. When the undersigned asked if this was true, the complainant, looking at respondent Go, rudely replied: “Because you are not my boss anymore!”

The conduct displayed by the complainant in the presence not only of the undersigned, the parties’ respective legal counsels but also with complainant’s own daughter around shows much of her character.[23] (Underscoring supplied)

The Labor Arbiter thus disposed:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING this complaint for constructive dismissal for lack of merit.

The counterclaim of the respondents is likewise dismissed for lack of merit.

All other claims herein sought and prayed for are hereby denied for lack of legal and factual bases.[24]

On appeal, the NLRC referred the case to Labor Arbiter Thelma M. Concepcion “for review, hearing when necessary with power to cite the parties for contempt under Article 218(d), Labor Code and submission of report for the Commission’s deliberation.”[25]

Finding Labor Arbiter Concepcion’s July 30, 2003 Report with recommendation[26] for the dismissal of Mariquit’s appeal to be “supported by facts on record and the law on the matter,” the NLRC adopted it as its own. It accordingly dismissed Mariquit’s appeal.

In holding that Mariquit voluntarily resigned and accordingly dismissing her appeal, the NLRC, by Decision dated August 18, 2003,[27] observed, among other things:

x x x x

With such tendency to threaten resignation everytime higher management would refuse her demand to transfer subordinates who had administrative differences with her, we therefore have no doubt that complainant voluntarily resigned when respondent Severino refused to heed her demand that Ms. Arnedo and Ms. Inductivo, her subordinates, be transferred to other departments. We also have no doubt that such resignation does not constitute constructive dismissal, much less an illegal one.

x x x x[28] (Underscoring supplied)

Her motion for reconsideration having been denied by the NLRC by Order of January 30, 2004,[29] Mariquit filed a Petition for Certiorari[30] before the Court of Appeals.

The appellate court, by Decision of August 20, 2004,[31] taking exception to the doctrine of finality of factual findings of labor tribunals,[32] reversed the NLRC decision, disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present petition is hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE and the questioned Decision and Resolution of the NLRC dated August 18, 2003 and January 30, 2004, respectively, are hereby both ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Private respondents are hereby declared liable for illegal dismissal and are consequently ordered to pay petitioner jointly and severally the back wages due to her computed from July 1, 2000 based on her latest salary as of that date up to the time of the finality of this judgment. As reinstatement is no longer feasible, private respondents are hereby also ordered to pay petitioner separation pay equivalent to one (1) month’s salary for every year of service, as prayed for by petitioner in her complaint.

Further, private respondents are hereby ordered to pay petitioner the sums of P200,000.00 and P100,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages, respectively, as well as attorney’s fees in the amount equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award.

No pronouncement as to costs.[33]

Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by Resolution of November 10, 2004,[34] they lodged the present petition faulting the appellate court as follows:

I.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GIVING RESPONDENT’S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DUE COURSE, THERE BEING NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION EITHER BY THE NLRC OR THE LABOR ARBITER AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION.

II.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN REVERSING AND DISTURBING THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY WHICH ARE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

A. THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE NLRC ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LABOR ARBITER, AND BOTH ARE DULY SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

B. THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRIMARILY APPRECIATE THE FACTS ARE GIVEN GREAT WEIGHT AND PREFERENCE.

C. THE FINDINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY MAY BE REVERSED ONLY ON CLEAR SHOWING OF PALPABLE ERROR.

III.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FOUND PETITIONERS GUILTY OF ILLEGAL DISMISSAL CONSIDERING THAT THE HONORABLE COURT MADE SEVERAL FINDINGS OF FACT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT OR BASIS ON RECORD, AND RULED ON SOME ISSUES WHICH NEITHER RESPONDENT NOR PETITIONERS RAISED IN THE PRESENT CASE.

A. THE COURT OF APPEALS GAVE UNDUE AND UNDESERVED CREDENCE TO THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY DR. MAGNO.

B. THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT SEXUAL HARASSMENT DID OCCUR.

C. PETITIONERS SHOWED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVITS TO DISPUTE THE ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL. THESE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SIMPLY BRUSHED ASIDE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.

D. THE COURT OF APPEALS MADE OTHER FACTUAL FINDINGS THAT LACKED COHERENCE OR BASIS, DEFIED LOGIC, OR WERE OTHERWISE IMMATERIAL TO THE REOLUTION OF THE CASE, AND DISREGARDED OTHER ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY PETITIONERS.

E. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AWARDING BACKWAGES, SEPARATION PAY, AND DAMAGES, (Emphasis and underscoring supplied),

and pleading that

IV

JUSTIFIABLE REASONS REQUIRE THE SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.[35] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The first two errors assigned by petitioners, along with their plea for a review of the appellate court’s findings of fact, being interrelated, shall be discussed simultaneously.

Petitioners contend that in certiorari proceedings, judicial review does not go as far as evaluating the sufficiency of evidence upon which the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had based their conclusion, and while the Court of Appeals concluded that the factual findings of the NLRC are “arbitrary and unfair,” it failed to show the basis thereof.

Further, petitioners contend that the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are based on misapprehension of facts and speculations, surmises, or conjectures.

It is settled that factual findings of labor administrative officials, if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded not only great respect but even finality, unless there is a showing that they arbitrarily disregarded the evidence before them or had misapprehended evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion if properly appreciated.[36]

Judicial review of decisions of the NLRC via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is confined only to issues of lack or excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC.[37] Thus Danzas Intercontinental, Inc. v. Daguman[38] teaches:

x x x As a general rule, in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court under which the petition was brought to the Court of Appeals, the appellate court does not assess and weigh the sufficiency of evidence upon which the labor arbiter and the NLRC based their conclusions, the query being limited to the determination of whether or not the NLRC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering its resolution, except if the findings of the NLRC are not supported by substantial evidence.[39] (Italics in the original; underscoring supplied)

In her petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, Mariquit attributed to the NLRC the commission of grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction “in dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal[,] ignoring clear and convincing proof of sexual harassment.”[40] (Underscoring supplied)

It was thus incumbent for Mariquit to prove before the appellate court grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC.[41]

Mariquit failed to discharge the burden, however.

Contrary to Mariquit’s submission, the NLRC did not disregard the evidence she proffered to prove that sexual harassment forced her to resign. Thus the NLRC observed:

Indeed, the record is replete with substantial evidence showing that the complainant was not forced to resign through any act of sexual harassment. Rather, as reported by Arbiter Concepcion and as admitted in complainant’s position paper [dated April 26, 2002], she voluntarily resigned when “her repeated requests for the transfer to some other department of two of her key personnel, Ms. Andrea Arnedo and Ms. Evelyn Inductivo” were refused by “respondent Severino.”[42] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Petitioners’ third assigned error which bears on her claim of sexual harassment calls for a determination of the weight of Mariquit’s evidence of forced resignation.

Significantly, after the Court of Appeals promulgated on August 20, 2004 its assailed Decision finding Mariquit to have been forced to resign, and on November 10, 2004 its Resolution denying herein petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration, the DOJ, through Undersecretary Ernesto Pineda, acting on petitioner Go’s petition for review of the earlier-mentioned Quezon City Prosecutor’s Resolution adverse to Go, issued a Resolution of April 4, 2005 reversing the Prosecutor’s Resolution.

Held the DOJ:

Under the circumstances, it is improbable for respondent Go to have committed the alleged acts of lasciviousness. In the company party held [on November 19, 1999] in Quezon City, more or less sixty (60) people were present occupying the living room and lanai area of the residence of Policarpio B. Pau, Jr. It is highly unthinkable that respondent Go would make any sexual advances in the presence of so many people and no one would notice. Aside from complainant’s allegations, there is nothing on record to corroborate the same. In fact, not one of the sixty (60) guests supported her claims. On the other hand, respondent Go submitted the affidavit of the party’s host, Policarpio B. Pau, Jr., stating that he never saw respondent Go make advances to complainant. Moreover, according to another guest, Ms. Purisima Y. Velasco, respondent Go talked to complainant for a while and proceeded to join the other guests.

The conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged assault is of utmost importance so as to establish the truth or falsity of the charge for acts of lasciviousness. Complainant’s deportment seemed unnatural for someone who allegedly went through a harrowing experience. For evidence to be believed it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself such as the common experiences and observation of mankind can approve under the circumstances. In the instant case after the alleged sexual advances, complainant continued working for Digitel until her resignation effective on June 30, 2000. During her employment with Digitel, she never initiated or filed any case for sexual harassment or acts of lasciviousness against respondents. Further, when she eventually resigned, she did not even state in her resignation letter that her resignation was due to sexual harassment or sexual abuse. Finally, it took complainant almost two (2) years before filing her complaint.

Indeed, complainant’s uncorroborated testimony is not sufficient to sustain a finding of probable cause for acts of lasciviousness against respondent Go.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the assailed resolution is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The City Prosecutor of Quezon City is directed to cause the withdrawal of the Information for acts of lasciviousness against respondent Robert Johnson L. Go and report to this Office the action taken within ten (10) days from receipt hereof.[43] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied).

At this juncture, this Court could stop and refrain from calibrating the evidence on whether sexual harassment indeed forced Mariquit to resign. For Pono v. National Labor Relations Commission[44] instructs:

x x x The Court takes cognizance of the fact that a criminal complaint for attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness filed by Pono against Castillo before the Prosecutors Office in Makati was eventually dismissed due to lack of merit, which dismissal was affirmed by the Department of Justice. Indisputably, an investigating fiscal is under no obligation to file a criminal information where he is not convinced that he has the quantum of evidence at hand to support the averments.

Thus, the determination of the persons to be prosecuted rests primarily with the prosecutor who is vested with quasi-judicial discretion in the discharge of this function. The courts should give credence, in the absence of a clear showing of arbitrariness, to the findings and determination of probable cause by prosecutors in a preliminary investigation.[45] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Absent any showing that the DOJ acted with arbitrariness, this Court is bound to accept its findings as it is this department which has control and supervision over public prosecutors.

Nonetheless, this Court has given the evidence a hard look if only to put to rest any nagging doubts on the correctness of the assessment thereof by the lower tribunals.

To prove that she was sexually harassed to thus force her to resign, Mariquit submitted before the Labor Arbiter the following documents as part of her Position Paper dated April 26, 2002: her Affidavit dated April 25, 2002;[46] Affidavit dated April 25, 2002 of her friend Grace J. Sta. Clara;[47] and Affidavit dated April 25, 2002 of Francisco C. Wenceslao.[48]

In her April 25, 2002 Affidavit, Mariquit gave the following pertinent statements as regards petitioner Go:

x x x x

8. Sometime in May 1999, during a cocktail party for the sales department of Digitel held at the Summit Lounge of the Manila Galleria Suites, Go, after noticing that I was wearing a short skirt, insisted that I sit down so that he could take a better look at my legs.

9. On 20 August 1999, in a company-wide sales conference at Manila Midtown Hotel in Ermita Manila, Go while purportedly asking questions about my work, deliberately dropped his hand on my lap and repeatedly stroked my thighs. I was shocked and deeply offended by Go’s indecent display of behavior;

10. After the sales conference, Go became more attentive to me and began to drop by at my office to start a conversation with me. Such sudden display of affection disturbed me as well as made me feel awkward whenever Go approached me;

11. In October 1999, during a farewell party for departing Digitel officers held at the residence of Digitel employee Matet Ruiz, Go insisted that I dance with him. Fearful of causing a scene at a public gathering, I agreed to dance a few steps with him and when I attempted to sit down, Go blocked my way and pinched my waist;

12. On 19 November 1999, during another party given by an officer of Digitel, Mr. Policarpio B. Pau at his residence in Quezon City, I could no longer elude Go’s advances because he cornered me on a sofa by sitting so close and in such a way that I was virtually pinned against the side of the sofa. Go held my hand and started massaging it in the guise of looking at the ring that I was then wearing. Because I felt uncomfortable and uneasy with Go’s repulsive actions, I took off the ring and gave it to him. To date, Go has not yet returned the ring to me.

13. Go then crept his hand under the throw pillow which I had placed to separate me from Go to reach for my vagina and to poke it several times. I could not escape because I was hemmed in by the arm of the sofa.

14. When I was finally able to extricate myself from Go’s clutches, I stood up, but Go pulled me to the dance floor, pressed me close to him and moved his hand across my back to feel my body. I tried to move away from him and at the same time tried not to attract anyone’ [sic] attention nor to cause a scene. Go then whispered in my ears, “Do not push me, I could make life in Digitel easy for you. I can take care of your promotion and give you rewards.”

15. In order to break free from Go’s holds, I maneuvered to turn to the beat of the music. Go then reached out his hand and groped my breast, caressed my back and reached inside my blouse to rub me from up my brassieres down to my buttocks. As I was trying to resist Go’s sexual advances, Go again hinted that my promotion would be accelerated if I would only be “nice” to him.

16. On 11 February 2000, during a dinner party for Digitel’s sales force held at the Manila Galleria Suites, Go called for me to start the line for the buffet and again rubbed his hand across my back to feel my brassiere.

x x x x[49] (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

As regards petitioner Severino, Mariquit stated:

x x x x

18. I also caught Severino looking at my legs up to the back of my thighs on several occasions, to wit: (a) in January 1999 when he intentionally pointed to my legs to a fellow company officer who also looked at them; (b) in the NEAX Training Room in February 1999 when I picked up things I dropped on the floor, where Severino even walked behind me to get a better view of my thighs; and (c) during our out-of-town strategic planning session in September 1999 at the Princess Urduja Hotel in Pangasinan.

19. Whenever Severino presided over meetings where I was asked to attend, he always tilted his head to look at my legs and peek in between my thighs thereby making me feel awkward and uncomfortable such that I preferred to sit with my back facing him.

20. During my last few months in Digitel, specifically March to June 2000, Severino purposely sat near me during meetings and intentionally brushed his legs on my legs;

21. After the 19 November 1999 incident with Go at the party of Mr. Policarpio B. Pau, I reported my disgrace and outrage over the sexual advances inflicted upon me by Go, to Severino to which he replied, “I saw what happened. I have eyes too.”

x x x x (Italics in the original).[50]

Grace J. Sta. Clara, a licensed broker of the Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. and, as stated above, a friend of Mariquit, declared in her affidavit:

x x x x

7. That Ms. Soriano told me she often caught Severino staring at her crotch and made suggestive remarks, for instance, he asked her to wear shorts during out of town trips.

8. That the real shock to me was when Ms. Soriano told me of the incident at a party given by one of Digitel officials when she was harassed by Johnson Go, a brother of Mr. John Gokongwei and Digitel’s Senior EVP, which in her words ran, more or less, as follows: “Hinipuan ako sa boobs at dinukot yon pipi ko.”

9. That I asked Ms. Soriano to sue Johnson Go for his dastardly act but she hesitated understandably because, as a single parent with four children, she did not want to lose her job and decided to just avoid Go.

10. That after the incident and Go must have felt that Ms. Soriano was avoiding him, which he said so according to her, Severino suddenly changed his attitude toward her and, in Ms. Soriano’s words, began making impossible demands she could not possibly comply with.

11. That Ms. Soriano told me Severino must have been under pressure from Go to make her give in to his advances because he (Go) knew she was a single parent who could not afford to lose her job, which was a usual technique of a sexual predator like Go who reportedly used it in the past with female employees.[51]

x x x x (Italics in the original; underscoring supplied)