Failing to promptly and sensitively address workplace sexual harassment complaints may amount to constructive dismissal.

Maria experienced repeated acts of sexual harassment from her immediate superior, including unwanted touching, sexually suggestive remarks, and non-consensual kissing. Although she formally reported the incidents to management, the employer failed to act with urgency. The investigation began only after 41 days, while the alleged offender continued reporting for work as usual. Feeling unsafe and unsupported, Maria eventually resigned. She then filed a complaint for constructive dismissal. Was she correct?

Yes. Her resignation was not voluntary. Instead, the employer’s inaction created a hostile and unbearable work environment that effectively forced Maria to leave. Constructive dismissal is not limited to salary reductions or demotions. It also exists when an employer’s “insensibility, indifference, or disdain” makes continued employment unreasonable.

Important for Employers: Companies may become liable for damages when informed of sexual harassment yet fail to take immediate action. Delays, dismissive attitudes, and failure to protect complainants may expose companies to liability for backwages, separation pay, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

In recognizing the need to address these concerns, the State’s policy against sexual harassment has been strengthened through Republic Act No. 11313, otherwise known as the Safe Spaces Act. This law has expanded the definition of gender-based sexual harassment in the workplace and has added to the duties of an employer as to its prevention, deterrence, and punishment. It explicitly requires that complaints be investigated and resolved within 10 days or less upon its reporting. It likewise expressly provides for the liability of employers and duties of co-workers as to sexual harassment. The law likewise specifies the confidentiality of proceedings, and the issuance of a restraining order for the offended person. Moreover, it allows local government units to impose heavier penalties on perpetrators.

LBC Express-Vis, Inc. v. Palco. G.R. No. 217101, February 12, 2020.