G.R. No. A.C. No. 5900, April 10, 2019
Case Title: In the Matter of the Disciplinary Proceedings Against Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr.

FACTS

This is a disciplinary case against Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr., a law professor. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline found no sexual harassment, reasoning that the respondent did not explicitly demand sexual favors from his students. The Supreme Court, however, found him guilty. The concurring opinion details his acts: 1) He sent love letters, text messages, and invitations to a female student, which were unwelcome and made her feel degraded, forcing her to respond out of fear of reprisal. 2) He publicly ridiculed another female student by showing her a naked picture of a woman that resembled her, causing her severe distress, depression, and preventing her from participating in a moot court competition. 3) He embarrassed another female student by infusing her class recitation with sexual innuendo. When she said “come again,” he badgered her with unnecessary information about his virility and repeated this anecdote to other classes. His actions created a hostile, uncomfortable, and offensive school environment. In his defense, the respondent dismissed his victims’ suffering and failed to acknowledge his professional duties.

ISSUE

Whether the acts of Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr., as a law professor, constitute sexual harassment warranting disciplinary action, even in the absence of an explicit or categorical demand for a sexual favor.

RULING

Yes. The concurring opinion concurs in the penalty meted upon the respondent (suspension) and strongly opines that he should be disbarred for any repetition of such acts. The ruling reaffirms that sexual harassment in an educational setting can be committed even without an explicit demand for a sexual favor. It is committed when the offender’s acts create an “intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment” for the student, as held in Bacsin v. Wahiman and Domingo v. Rayala. The essence of sexual harassment is the abuse of power over another, not merely a violation of sexuality. The respondent abused his position of authority as a professor and lawyer to subject students to sexually charged words and actions, degrading and embarrassing them. His actions, including inappropriate communications, public ridicule with a naked picture, and sexual innuendo during class, forced unwanted advances and created a burden on the students. The opinion further states that such behavior, which trivializes women’s dignity through “jokes,” normalizes patriarchy and is aggravating. As a lawyer and officer of the court, the respondent is required to maintain the highest moral standards. His failure to appreciate the gravity of his actions shows a lack of the moral character required for the legal profession.