G.R. No. 223743, August 17, 2022
JOSE ROMEO C. ESCANDOR, PETITIONER, VS. HON. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, SEC. EMMANUEL F. ESGUERRA AND CINDY SHEILA C. GAMALLO

FACTS

Petitioner Jose Romeo C. Escandor, then Regional Director of NEDA Region 7, was administratively charged by private respondent Cindy Sheila Gamallo, a contractual employee under a UNICEF-assisted project. Gamallo alleged a series of unwelcome sexual advances and harassment by Escandor beginning in 1999. The incidents included being angrily berated in his office, followed by an unsolicited embrace and kiss on the forehead where he apologized. In 2000, Escandor repeatedly summoned her to his office, professed his love and attraction to her, made personal comments about her appearance, and on one occasion, placed his hand on her thigh. Gamallo felt degraded, confided in a colleague and her supervisor, and eventually filed a complaint for violation of the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 (RA 7877) before the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas).
The Ombudsman found Escandor guilty of Grave Misconduct and dismissed him from service. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. Escandor elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing that the Ombudsman and the CA erred in their factual findings and that the penalty was too harsh. He contended that the acts, if proven, constituted simple misconduct only and that dismissal was disproportionate.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed reversible error in finding petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct warranting dismissal from the service.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the findings of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the factual findings of the Ombudsman, when supported by substantial evidence and affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive and binding. A review under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law, and Escandor failed to demonstrate that the lower tribunals’ conclusions were grounded on speculations or unsupported by the evidence on record.
The Court meticulously reviewed the evidence and found that the series of acts—the unwelcome physical contact, the repeated sexual remarks and professions of love, and the abuse of his superior authority to create a hostile environment for a subordinate—constituted sexual harassment under RA 7877. These acts were not isolated but formed a pattern of behavior that betrayed petitioner’s moral depravity and constituted a flagrant disregard of established rules of conduct for a public officer. Such behavior transcends simple misconduct. Grave Misconduct is characterized by corruption, a clear intent to violate the law, or a flagrant disregard of established rules, all of which involve a wrongful intent. Petitioner’s deliberate and persistent sexual advances, exploiting his official position, demonstrated precisely such a corrupt and wrongful intent.
Consequently, the penalty of dismissal from the service, with its accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government service, was legally and factually justified. The Court emphasized that sexual harassment in the workplace is a serious offense that erodes public service integrity, and a stern penalty is necessary to deter such conduct.