G.R. No. 217101 , February 12, 2020
LBC EXPRESS-VIS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. MONICA C. PALCO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Monica C. Palco was employed by LBC Express-Vis Inc. as a customer associate. Her immediate superior and officer-in-charge, Arturo A. Batucan, subjected her to a series of escalating acts of sexual harassment. These included staring, inappropriate touching, pulling her bra strap, making sexually suggestive jokes, and, ultimately, on May 1, 2010, forcibly kissing her on the lips against her will. Palco reported the incident to the LBC Head Office on May 5, 2010, submitting a formal complaint on May 8, 2010. She also reported the matter to the police. LBC advised her to request a transfer to another team while it investigated. Sensing a lack of prompt action, Palco resigned on May 14, 2010, stating she no longer felt safe. LBC served Batucan a Notice to Explain on June 15, 2010, held an administrative hearing on July 20, 2010, and subsequently suspended Batucan for 60 days without pay with a final warning on September 27, 2010. Palco filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, a decision affirmed with modification by the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals. LBC filed the present petition, arguing it should not be liable for constructive dismissal as it did not commit any discriminatory act, it acted on the complaint with sensitivity, and the delay was due to the need to accord due process.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Monica C. Palco was constructively dismissed, making petitioner LBC Express-Vis, Inc. liable.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the findings of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that Palco was constructively dismissed. An employer has the duty to provide a safe work environment and to take immediate action on complaints of sexual harassment. LBC failed in this duty. Its response was unreasonably delayed and inadequate. The investigation commenced 78 days after the complaint was filed, and the disciplinary action (a suspension with a final warning) was imposed only after Palco had already resigned and filed her labor case. This failure to act with promptness and sensitivity created a hostile work environment, leaving Palco with no choice but to resign. The Court emphasized that an employer’s liability for constructive dismissal in sexual harassment cases arises from its failure to fulfill its duty to provide a safe workplace and to take immediate corrective action. The awards of backwages, separation pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees were sustained.