G.R. No. CTA-01-1; April 2, 2002
Atty. Susan M. Aquino, complainant, vs. Hon. Ernesto D. Acosta, Presiding Judge, Court of Tax Appeals, respondent.

FACTS

Atty. Susan M. Aquino, Chief of the Legal and Technical Staff of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), filed an administrative complaint against Presiding Judge Ernesto D. Acosta for sexual harassment under R.A. 7877 and violations of judicial ethics. The complaint detailed six specific incidents from November 2000 to February 2001. These included allegations that Judge Acosta, on multiple occasions, kissed her on the cheek or attempted to do so, often in the context of greetings or celebrations. The most serious incident alleged that on February 15, 2001, in his chambers, he stated “me gusto akong gawin sa iyo kahapon pa,” tried to grab her, held her arms tightly, and kissed her. Following this, he sent a note saying, “sorry, it won’t happen again.” Complainant supported her claims with witness affidavits.
In his defense, Judge Acosta denied all allegations of sexual harassment. He characterized the physical contacts as spontaneous, casual, and culturally acceptable greetings (like a “buss on the cheek”) during festive occasions, devoid of any sexual demand or malice. He argued his office’s transparent glass divider made improper conduct impossible and highlighted their continued normal professional relationship. He presented certifications and testimonies to counter the timeline of events and to show that complainant’s work performance and benefits remained unaffected.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Ernesto D. Acosta is administratively liable for sexual harassment and for conduct unbecoming a judicial officer.

RULING

The Court exonerated Judge Acosta. The legal logic centered on the insufficiency of evidence to meet the required standard of proof for administrative liability and the specific elements of sexual harassment under R.A. 7877. The Investigating Justice found the complainant’s evidence failed to create moral certainty. The acts complained of, as corroborated by the respondent’s evidence and the surrounding circumstances, were construed as casual gestures rather than demands for sexual favors. Critically, the Court noted there was no showing that the respondent demanded, requested, or required any sexual favor from the complainant in exchange for employment benefits, compensation, promotion, or privileges as required by Section 3 of R.A. 7877. Furthermore, the complainant’s continued exemplary work performance and unhampered access to office benefits indicated the alleged acts did not create an “intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment” for her. Consequently, the charges under the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Professional Responsibility also failed. However, the Court admonished the respondent to be more circumspect in his deportment to avoid any future misinterpretation of his actions.