Nena worked as an Executive Assistant for Nesting, CEO of Nordic Corporation. One day, Nesting called Nena into his office and showed her lewd pictures of women in seductive poses which Nena found offensive. Nena complained before the General Manager who, in turn, investigated the matter and recommended the dismissal of Nesting to the Board of Directors. Before the Board of Directors, Nesting argued, that since the Anti-Sexual Harassment Law requires the existence of “sexual favors,” he should not be dismissed from the service since he did not ask for any sexual favor from Nena. Is Nesting correct? (2.5%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
**No**, Nesting is incorrect. Under R.A. No. 7877 and *Domingo v. Rayala*, a demand for a sexual favor need not be explicitly stated in words and can be inferred from the offender's acts. Sexual harassment occurs when acts
Unlock the full Labor Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Under R.A. No. 7877 and Domingo v. Rayala, must a demand for a sexual favor be explicitly spoken in words?
Under Domingo v. Rayala, a demand for a sexual favor need not be explicitly articulated in words and can be inferred from the offender's acts.
What environment is created when a superior shows offensive lewd images to a subordinate in the workplace?
Showing lewd images to a subordinate creates an offensive and hostile work environment under R.A. No. 7877.
Under Article 297 of the Labor Code, how is sexual harassment committed by a managerial officer legally classified?
Sexual harassment committed by a superior against a subordinate constitutes serious misconduct justifying dismissal for cause.
Why is Nesting's argument that he never verbally requested any sexual favor legally untenable?
Choices available with full access.
What ethical standard of conduct is expected from high-ranking corporate executives like a Chief Executive Officer?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Implied Sexual Favors
Under Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act) and Domingo v. Rayala, a demand, request, or requirement for a sexual favor does not need to be explicitly articulated in spoken words. A demand for a sexual favor may be validly inferred or implied from the overt physical, visual, or demonstrative acts of the offender. Showing lewd or obscene pictures to a subordinate in a private office setting demonstrates a clear sexual overture, rendering an explicit verbal demand unnecessary to establish workplace sexual harassment.
2. Hostile Work Environment
Under Section 3 of R.A. No. 7877, sexual harassment includes acts that create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee. When a superior subjects a subordinate worker to offensive visual displays, such as displaying explicit pornographic or lewd images during office hours, it unreasonably interferes with the employee's work performance and creates an intolerable working atmosphere. The creation of such an offensive work environment independently constitutes punishable sexual harassment under the law and company regulations.
3. Serious Misconduct Dismissal
Under Article 297 of the Labor Code and Villarama v. NLRC, sexual harassment committed by a managerial officer or high-ranking corporate executive against a subordinate constitutes serious misconduct and moral perversity. Corporate officers, particularly Chief Executive Officers, are held to a higher ethical standard of conduct. Engaging in acts of sexual harassment violates the trust and confidence reposed by the employer and warrants immediate termination from employment for cause without entitlement to separation pay.