The alleged sexual advances by respondent were not proven with moral certainty.

SAMAHAN NG MGA BABAE SA HUDIKATURA (SAMABAHU),
Complainant,
- versus -
JUDGE CESAR 0. UNTALAN, Promulgated:
Regional Trial Court, Branch 149,
Makati City, Respondent.

A.M. No. RTJ-13-2363
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4149-RTJ)

February 25, 2015

"x x x.
Under Section 3 of A.M. No. 03-03-13-SC (Re: Rule on Administrative Procedure in Sexual Harassment Cases and Guidelines on Proper Work Decorum in the Judiciary), work-related sexual harassment is committed by an official or employee in the Judiciary who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by the latter. It is committed when “the sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-employment or continued employment of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in any way would discriminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee.”18

In this case, while respondent exercised moral ascendancy over Ripdos and Herradura, his subordinates at Branch 145 where he had temporarily presided as Pairing Judge at the time, the alleged sexual advances by respondent were not proven with moral certainty. We find that the totality of evidence failed to convince that respondent committed the acts imputed against him.

x x x."