Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40345:g-r-no-123048-august-8,-2000-yolanda-floralde-v-court-of-appeals,-et-al&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:41:00+00:00

Document:
YOLANDA FLORALDE, NIDA VELASCO and NORMELITA ALAMBRA, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and PAULINO W. RESMA, Respondents.
On April 23, 1994, petitioners employees of the ATI charged respondent Paulino W. Resma with grave misconduct in office (sexual harassment) in three separate complaints filed directly with the Civil Service Commission.
On August 30, 1994, the Commission gave due course to the complaints and formally charged respondent with grave misconduct requiring him to submit his answer with the affidavits of his witnesses, and placed him under preventive suspension for ninety (90) days effective upon notice.
On September 9, 1994, respondent filed his answer to the complaints. He specifically denied all the accusations against him and asked for the dismissal of the complaints.
On September 20, 1994, the Commission resolved to conduct a formal investigation of the case.
At the hearing, petitioners affirmed the contents of their affidavits and gave the specific dates during which the sexual harassment took place. Petitioners categorically narrated the various incidents of sexual harassment, and they were subjected to extensive cross-examination. On the other hand, five witnesses testified for the respondent including himself. In essence, they testified that the sexual harassment could not have occurred.
After due hearing, on September 22, 1995, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision which REVERSED and SET ASIDE the resolutions of the Civil Service Commission.
The issue raised is whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the resolutions of the Civil Service Commission on the ground that the same were not supported by substantial evidence.
The sexual harassment charges against Resma were filed by three (3) rank and file employees of the Agricultural Training Institute, where respondent Paulino Resma is OIC. Being rank and file employees, they were all reporting to their superior, Paulino Resma. Their time records were signed by the latter. Sexual harassment in the workplace is not about a man taking advantage of a woman by reason of sexual desire; it is about power being exercised by a superior officer over his women subordinates. The power emanates from the fact that the superior can remove the subordinate from his workplace if the latter would refuse his amorous advances.
This is the situation at bar. Yolanda Floralde, Nida Velasco and Normelita Alambra were all rank and file employees reporting to respondent Paulino Resma, and their Daily Time Records (DTRs) were signed by him.
Respondent Resma alleged that the Civil Service Commission erred in its resolutions since the petitioners were unable to prove his guilt by the quantum of substantial evidence required in administrative proceedings.
We do not agree. The evidence adduced before the Commission consists of the positive testimonies of petitioners. On the other hand, respondent claimed that it was impossible for him to be at the office on the days that the sexual harassment occurred. In other words, respondent presented an alibi.
We are not convinced that all three women would prevaricate at the mere urging of Atty. Ola. Filing a charge for sexual harassment is not a trivial matter. It entails having to go public with an incident that one is trying to forget. It means opening oneself to public ridicule and scrutiny. We, therefore, can not believe the version of the defense that the charges were all fabricated.
As to the issue of whether the resolution of the Civil Service Commission is supported by substantial evidence, we find that, in fact, preponderant evidence supported its findings.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Bellosillo, J., abroad on O.B.
As gleaned from the records, on April 23, 1994, Yolanda Floralde, Nida Velasco, and Normalita Alambre, employees of the Agricultural Training Institute (ATI), charged private respondent Paulino Resma, who was then the Officer-In-Charge of the ATI, with sexual harassment in separate complaints filed with the Civil Service Commission (CSC). In a resolution dated February 17, 1995, the CSC found private respondent Resma guilty of grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal from the service. Following the denial of his motion for reconsideration, private respondent Resma elevated the issue to the Court of Appeals, which thereafter set aside and reversed the decision of the CSC. Private complainants Floralde, Velasco, and Alambre then sought review and reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals with this Court.
In Paredes v. Civil Service Commission (192 SCRA 84 ), we held that in CSC cases, the right to appeal is limited only to the party adversely affected by the decision, that is, only the person or the respondent employee who has been meted out the penalty of suspension for more than thirty days, or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days salary, demotion in rank or salary or transfer, removal or dismissal from office can appeal said decision. By inference or implication, when the respondent is exonerated of the charge against him, there is no occasion exoneration is inappealable.
In the instant case, when private respondent Resma was exonerated by the Court of Appeals, it was not the CSC but the complainants who filed an appeal. Having been filed by complainants, the petition should therefore be denied, in line with the above-stated doctrine.
Unfortunately, the aforementioned doctrine cannot be applied in the instant controversy because private respondent Resma failed to raise it as an issue on appeal.
When private respondent appealed the decision of the MSPB to the CSC, petitioner never questioned the propriety of the appeal and preferred to defend the correctness of the decision. Likewise, petitioner failed to question before this Court the right of private respondent to appeal from the decision of the MSPB. A law limiting the right to appeal to the respondent in the administrative case is a rule of procedure, not of substantive law. Failure to invoke timely a rule of procedure in favor of a party constitutes a waiver thereof (Republic v. Judge Villanueva, G.R. No. 83333, February 13, 1989, En Banc, Minute Resolution).
Having failed to question the complainants’ right to appeal, the petition may not now be dismissed on that ground.
1.	In CA-G.R. SP No. 37480, promulgated September 22, 1995, Mabutas, Jr., J., ponente, Torres and de la Rama, JJ., concurring, Petition, Annex "A", Rollo, pp. 18-39.
2.	Resolution No. 95-0968, adopted on February 17, 1995, Patricia A. Sto. Tomas; Chairman, Ramon P. Ereneta, Jr. and Thelma P. Gaminde, Commissioners, Petition, Annex "D", Rollo, pp. 46-51.
3.	Petition, Annex "D", Rollo, pp. 46-51.
4.	Petition, Annex "E", pp. 52-57.
5.	Petition, Annex "C", pp. 41-45.
6.	Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 37480.
7.	Filed on January 2, 1996; Rollo, pp. 3-17. On September 28, 1999, we gave due course to the petition (Rollo, pp. 179-180).
8.	Record, Affidavit Complaint, p. 509.
10.	Record, Affidavit-Complaint, p. 500.
11.	Record, Affidavit-Complaint, p. 500.
12.	Record, Affidavit-Complaint, p. 502.
13.	Record, Affidavit Complaint, pp. 501-502.
14.	Sapu-an v. Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 701, 706 .
16.	Jison v. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 495, 532 .
17.	Ynson v. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 411, 423 , citing Rubenecia v. Civil Service Commission, 244 SCRA 640 .

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.