In Re: Anonymous Complaint Against Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr., the Supreme Court addressed the issue of sexual harassment committed by a law professor against his students. The Court found Atty. Untian guilty of creating a hostile and offensive environment through his actions, which included sending inappropriate messages, making sexually suggestive remarks, and displaying lewd images. This ruling underscores that sexual harassment in educational settings is not limited to explicit demands for sexual favors but also encompasses any conduct that abuses power and creates an intimidating environment. The Court suspended Atty. Untian from the practice of law for five years and prohibited him from teaching law for ten years, sending a strong message about the responsibilities of educators and legal professionals.

When Jokes Cross the Line: Accountability for Educator’s Conduct

This case began with an anonymous complaint filed against Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr., a law professor at Xavier University, alleging sexual harassment of several female students. The complaint detailed incidents involving unwanted romantic advances, the public display of a compromising photograph, and inappropriate, sexually charged remarks during class. These actions led to an investigation by the university’s Committee on Decorum and Investigation, which recommended that Atty. Untian’s teaching contract not be renewed. The central legal question was whether Atty. Untian’s conduct constituted sexual harassment and, if so, what disciplinary actions were warranted.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially recommended disbarment for Atty. Untian, which was later reduced to a two-year suspension, prompting further review by the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that sexual harassment, particularly in an educational context, involves the abuse of power and the creation of a hostile environment, regardless of whether explicit sexual favors are demanded. The legal framework for this case is primarily based on Republic Act No. 7877, also known as the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, which defines and prohibits sexual harassment in employment, education, and training environments.

The Supreme Court carefully considered the evidence presented, including the testimonies of the students and Atty. Untian’s defense. The Court highlighted the power dynamics inherent in the teacher-student relationship and emphasized that the essence of sexual harassment is not merely the violation of the victim’s sexuality but the abuse of power by the offender.

In Philippine Aeolus Automotive United Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Court explained that the essence of sexual harassment is not the violation of the victim’s sexuality but the abuse of power by the offender. In other words, what the law aims to punish is the undue exercise of power and authority manifested through sexually charged conduct or one filled with sexual undertones.

Atty. Untian’s defense hinged on the argument that his actions were either misinterpreted or taken out of context. He claimed that the text messages he sent were harmless, the photograph incident was merely a joke, and the remark in class was intended to inject humor. However, the Court rejected these justifications, noting that his conduct created a hostile and offensive environment, regardless of his intentions. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining professional boundaries and ethical standards, especially for lawyers and educators.

Moreover, the Court referenced the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution No. 01-0940, which provides a detailed definition and illustrative forms of sexual harassment, particularly in educational settings. The CSC resolution emphasizes that creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive academic environment constitutes sexual harassment. It also specifies that actions reasonably expected to cause discrimination, insecurity, discomfort, offense, or humiliation to a student fall under this definition.

The Supreme Court discussed each incident separately, explaining why it constituted sexual harassment. Regarding the text messages to Toyco, the Court stated that while they might seem like harmless, everyday texts, they were unwelcome flirtations that made Toyco uncomfortable, especially considering Atty. Untian was her teacher. The Court found that sending these texts cast a cloud of impropriety. With respect to the incident involving Sagarbarria, the Court deemed it reprehensible that Atty. Untian publicly showed a lewd picture to her in the presence of other students, causing her severe distress. Even if he claimed to have confiscated the photo from another student, publicly displaying it and teasing Sagarbarria was inappropriate and created a hostile environment.

As for the incident with Dal, the Court clarified that Atty. Untian’s response to her request for him to “come again” during a recitation was tasteless, vulgar, and crude. The Court emphasized that it was not a clever word play but a statement with clear sexual innuendos, making Dal uncomfortable and embarrassed in front of her classmates. The Court underscored that these actions, taken together, constituted an abuse of power and created an offensive environment, thus violating the principles of professional conduct and ethical standards for educators.

Furthermore, the Court reiterated the high ethical standards expected of members of the legal profession. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Canon 7 mandates that lawyers shall uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and Rule 7.03 of the CPR commands lawyers not to engage in conduct that adversely reflects on their fitness to practice law or behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) provides that a lawyer shall not engage in an unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. On the other hand, Canon 7 mandates that lawyers shall, at all times, uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Further, Rule 7.03 of the CPR commands lawyers not to engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, or behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

The Court emphasized that lawyers must be seen as individuals of good moral character, leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. This expectation is heightened for law professors, who are tasked with molding the minds of future lawyers. The Court found that Atty. Untian’s actions demonstrated a deficiency in moral character and a failure to uphold the ethical standards of the legal profession. Consequently, the Court modified the IBP’s recommendation, increasing the suspension from the practice of law to five years and imposing a ten-year ban on teaching law. This decision underscores the seriousness with which the Court views sexual harassment, particularly when committed by those in positions of authority and trust.

This case serves as a critical reminder of the responsibilities of legal professionals and educators to maintain ethical conduct and respect the dignity of their students. It reinforces the principle that sexual harassment is not only about explicit demands but also about creating an environment where individuals feel intimidated, degraded, or offended. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case aims to protect students from abuse of power and uphold the integrity of the legal profession.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr.’s actions toward his students constituted sexual harassment and what disciplinary measures were appropriate. The Court focused on determining if his conduct created a hostile and offensive environment in violation of ethical and legal standards.
What is considered sexual harassment in an educational environment?	Sexual harassment in an educational environment includes any unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when such conduct creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment. It also involves abusing one’s authority or influence over a student.
Did Atty. Untian explicitly demand sexual favors from his students?	No, the Court found that Atty. Untian did not need to explicitly demand sexual favors for his actions to constitute sexual harassment. The Court emphasized that creating a hostile or offensive environment through sexually charged conduct is sufficient to establish sexual harassment.
What specific actions did Atty. Untian commit that were considered harassment?	Atty. Untian sent inappropriate romantic text messages, publicly displayed a lewd photograph of a woman resembling a student, and made sexually suggestive remarks during class. These actions were found to have created a hostile and offensive environment for his students.
What is the legal basis for the Court’s decision?	The Court based its decision on Republic Act No. 7877, the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court also referenced Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution No. 01-0940, which further defines and illustrates sexual harassment in educational settings.
What penalties did Atty. Untian face?	Atty. Untian was suspended from the practice of law for five years and prohibited from teaching law in any school for ten years. These penalties reflect the seriousness of his misconduct and the need to protect students from abuse of power.
Why is the abuse of power a central issue in sexual harassment cases?	The abuse of power is central because it involves using one’s position of authority or influence to exploit, intimidate, or degrade another person. This is particularly harmful in educational settings where students are vulnerable and rely on their teachers for guidance and support.
What message does this case send to other legal professionals and educators?	This case sends a strong message that legal professionals and educators must maintain the highest ethical standards and professional boundaries. It emphasizes that creating a hostile or offensive environment is unacceptable and will result in severe consequences.
How does this case relate to the Code of Professional Responsibility?	The case relates to the Code of Professional Responsibility because it highlights the ethical duties of lawyers to avoid immoral, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. It also emphasizes their responsibility to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession in both their public and private lives.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case serves as a crucial reminder that educators and legal professionals must maintain the highest ethical standards and foster a safe, respectful learning environment. By holding Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr. accountable for his actions, the Court reinforces the importance of protecting students from abuse of power and upholding the integrity of the legal profession.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: RE: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTY. CRESENCIO P. CO UNTIAN, JR., A.C. No. 5900, April 10, 2019