G.R. No. 123737 May 28, 1999
CARLOS C. LIBRES, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION, OSMUNDO G. WAGA, JR., ANTONIE D. SEVA, PETER J. LOQUILLANO, SATURNINO P. MEJORADA and ISIDRO F. HYNSON, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Carlos Libres, an Assistant Manager at National Steel Corporation (NSC), was served a Notice of Investigation concerning a sexual harassment complaint filed by a secretary, Susan Capiral, alleging incidents from May 1992. He submitted a written explanation denying the charges and offered to answer clarificatory questions. An internal investigation was conducted by his superior, Isidro Hynson Jr., where both parties were heard. The Management Evaluation Committee (MEC), after review, found Libres’s acts—touching Capiral’s hand and shoulder, caressing her nape, and making statements about her—constituted sexual harassment under company rules and recommended a 30-day suspension without pay, which was implemented after his request for reconsideration was denied.
Libres filed a complaint for illegal suspension, arguing denial of due process as the MEC did not grant him a personal audience despite his offer, and contesting the finding of sexual harassment. The Labor Arbiter ruled against him, finding due process was observed and that the acts constituted sexual harassment, a decision affirmed by the NLRC. Libres elevated the case via certiorari, arguing the NLRC failed to apply the criteria under the newly enacted Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995) and that the reliance on the Villarama v. NLRC case was misplaced.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the validity of Libres’s suspension based on a finding of sexual harassment and in ruling that he was afforded due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. On the substantive issue, the Court held that the acts admitted by Libres—fondling a subordinate’s hand and massaging her shoulders—constituted sexual harassment as defined under prevailing jurisprudence and the company’s own rules, which prohibited unauthorized acts injurious to another employee. The Court noted that RA 7877, invoked by Libres, was not raised before the NLRC and, in any event, was enacted after the incidents and the filing of the complaint; thus, its non-application was not erroneous. The factual findings of the NLRC, supported by evidence, were conclusive.
On procedural due process, the Court ruled it was satisfied. Libres received notice, submitted a written explanation, participated in the internal investigation where he and the complainant were heard, and was given a chance to seek reconsideration. Due process in administrative proceedings does not require a trial-type hearing; it is fulfilled with the opportunity to be heard. The MEC’s decision not to conduct a further personal confrontation, after considering the investigation report and his written submission, did not constitute a denial of this right. The suspension was imposed in accordance with company regulations and after a fair investigation.