Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 606 views

    Bacsin Vs Wahiman

    Uploaded by

    PM CU
    Bacsin, a public school teacher, was accused of sexual harassment by one of his students, AAA. AAA claimed that Bacsin invited her to his office, held her hand without consent, and fondled her breast five times. Bacsin claimed it was an accident. The CSC found Bacsin guilty of grave misconduct and sexual harassment and dismissed him from service. The court affirmed this decision, as Bacsin's actions violated the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995. The court ruled that an explicit demand for a sexual favor is not required to constitute sexual harassment, and that Bacsin's actions created an intimidating environment for the student. Therefore, Bacsin was found guilty of sexual harassment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bacsin Vs Wahiman

    Uploaded by

    PM CU
    606 views2 pages
    Bacsin, a public school teacher, was accused of sexual harassment by one of his students, AAA. AAA claimed that Bacsin invited her to his office, held her hand without consent, and fondled her breast five times. Bacsin claimed it was an accident. The CSC found Bacsin guilty of grave misconduct and sexual harassment and dismissed him from service. The court affirmed this decision, as Bacsin's actions violated the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995. The court ruled that an explicit demand for a sexual favor is not required to constitute sexual harassment, and that Bacsin's actions created an intimidating environment for the student. Therefore, Bacsin was found guilty of sexual harassment.

    Original Description:

    Sexual Harassment Case

    Original Title

    Bacsin vs Wahiman

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Bacsin, a public school teacher, was accused of sexual harassment by one of his students, AAA. AAA claimed that Bacsin invited her to his office, held her hand without consent, and fondled her breast five times. Bacsin claimed it was an accident. The CSC found Bacsin guilty of grave misconduct and sexual harassment and dismissed him from service. The court affirmed this decision, as Bacsin's actions violated the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995. The court ruled that an explicit demand for a sexual favor is not required to constitute sexual harassment, and that Bacsin's actions created an intimidating environment for the student. Therefore, Bacsin was found guilty of sexual harassment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    606 views2 pages

    Bacsin Vs Wahiman

    Uploaded by

    PM CU
    Bacsin, a public school teacher, was accused of sexual harassment by one of his students, AAA. AAA claimed that Bacsin invited her to his office, held her hand without consent, and fondled her breast five times. Bacsin claimed it was an accident. The CSC found Bacsin guilty of grave misconduct and sexual harassment and dismissed him from service. The court affirmed this decision, as Bacsin's actions violated the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995. The court ruled that an explicit demand for a sexual favor is not required to constitute sexual harassment, and that Bacsin's actions created an intimidating environment for the student. Therefore, Bacsin was found guilty of sexual harassment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Bacsin vs Wahiman

    553 SCRA 138

    FACTS:

    Petitioner Dioscoro Bacsin is a public school elementary school teacher. Respondent


    Eduardo Wahiman is the father of AAA, an elementary school student of the petitioner. AAA
    claimed that Bacsin invited her to his office. Once inside, she was him pull out a folder then
    asked her to come closer to him. When she did, Bacsin held her hand , then touched and fondled
    her breast five times. In his defense, Bacsin claimed that the touching incident happened by
    accident and it happened about two to three seconds, and that AAA left his office without any
    complaint.

    The CSC found Bacsin guilty of Grave Misconduct (Acts of Sexual Harassment) and
    dismissed him from service. The CA affirmed the decision of the CSC. The CA ruled that, even
    if petitioner was formally charged with disgraceful and immoral conduct and misconduct, the
    CSC found that the allegations and evidence sufficiently proved petitioners guilt of grave
    misconduct, punishable by dismissal from the service.

    ISSUE: Whether or not Bacsin is guilty of sexual harassment

    RULING:

    Yes, Bacsin is guilty of sexual harassment

    The formal charge, while not specifically mentioning RA 7877, The Anti-Sexual
    Harassment Act of 1995, imputes on the petitioner acts covered and penalized by said law.

    Contrary to the argument of petitioner, the demand of a sexual favor need not be explicit
    or stated. In Domingo v. Rayala, it was held, “It is true that this provision calls for a ‘demand,
    request or requirement of a sexual favor.’ But it is not necessary that the demand, request, or
    requirement of a sexual favor be articulated in a categorical oral or written statement. It may be
    discerned, with equal certitude, from the acts of the offender.”

    The CSC found, as did the CA, that even without an explicit demand from petitioner his
    act of mashing the breast of AAA was sufficient to constitute sexual harassment. Moreover,
    under Section 3 (b) (4) of RA 7877, sexual harassment in an education or training environment is
    committed “(w)hen the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or offensive
    environment for the student, trainee or apprentice.” AAA even testified that she felt fear at the
    time petitioner touched her.
    In grave misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant
    disregard of established rule must be manifest.14 The act of petitioner of fondling one of his
    students is against a law, RA 7877, and is doubtless inexcusable. The particular act of petitioner
    cannot in any way be construed as a case of simple misconduct.

    You might also like