CASE DIGEST: Presidential Broadcast Staff-Radio Television Malacanang v. Tabasa

 

PRESIDENTIAL BROADCAST STAFF-RADIO TELEVISION MALACANANG (PBS-RTVM), petitioner, vs. VERGEL P. TABASA, respondent
G.R. No. 234624                |              February 26, 2020

 

FACTS:

Sharmila Kaye Angco, a contractual employee of petitioner PBS-RTVM, filed an administrative complaint against Tabasa, a close-in cameraman of PBS-RTVM in Manila, for sexual harassment or grave misconduct.

According to Angco, one afternoon, while she was seating on a sofa in the Engineering Office watching Eat Bulaga, Tabasa suddenly sat beside her and cornered her and then proceeded to tickle her right knee much to her shock and humiliation. Despite her protestations, Tabasa also held her causing her to hit her left elbow in the nearby cabinet when she freed herself from Tabasa. Distraught, she subsequently left the room and proceeded to the office toilet to cry. Thereafter, she returned to the Engineering Office and relayed the incident to her colleagues. Much to her dismay, Tabasa appeared and tried to approach her, but she avoided him. But instead of apologizing, Tabasa taunted her, with a smirk, and uttered “Oh, umiyak kaw daw.” Tabasa then left the office.

Tabasa admitted that he touched the knee of Angco, but he insisted that it was intended as a joke and done without malice considering that they were in a group who were laughing while watching television. He asserted that the simultaneous filing of the complaints by Angco, Bethlehem Dela Cruz, and Maria Cristeta David indicated a concerted action on the part of the lady employees to harass and inconvenience him. He further questioned the charge of misconduct against him arguing that it was not an act performed in connection to or related to his functions.

ISSUE:

Whether or not tickling of the knee constitutes sexual harassment

RULING:

Misconduct is a transgression of some established or definite rule of action; more particularly, it is an unlawful behavior by the public officer.

It is important to stress that there is playful teasing and then there is hurtful teasing. Despite teasing’s positive effects to interpersonal relationships, it may not always be perceived favorably. The way a person views a joke may differ depending on the situation and on how one perceives a tease—a teaser’s intentions and his/her overall interaction with the teaser. Insensitive jokes or actions could border on harassment, due to the fact that target may be unaware of the teaser’s intentions.

In this case, Tabasa’s antic of touching Angco’s knee may be a joke to him, but for its recipient, it was completely embarrassing and inappropriate. Even though Tabasa could have the best of intentions in making a moment lighthearted with Angco while watching a television show, the latter’s reception of the joke was clearly resistive. The touching of the knee was clearly unsolicited and uncalled for and Tabasa does not have any right to do so. Even if the act was done without malice, it beyond all bounds of decency and decorum for a person to touch any body part of another without consent for that matter. Veritably, Tabasa not only demonstrated his moral depravity and lack of respect towards female co-employees, but also his unprofessionalism in his interactions with his colleagues.

The Court takes judicial notice that humor in the workplace could positively leverage work-related outcomes such as work productivity, staff motivation, job satisfaction, group cohesion, commitment, and most importantly, stress reduction. However, unsolicited physical contact, even if done in jest, has no place in the workplace.