Supreme Court suspends law professor for allegedly sexually harassing students

The Supreme Court has suspended a law professor in Xavier University in Cagayan de Oro City for allegedly sexually harassing three female students.

Acting on an anonymous complaint filed in 2002, the Court suspended lawyer Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr. from practicing law for five years and from teaching law for 10 years, modifying an earlier resolution by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) that said a two-year suspension was "sufficient."

The Court also issued a "stern warning" that a repetition of Untian's acts would "be dealt with more severely."

Associate Justice Marvic Leonen concurred in the decision but wrote in a separate opinion that Untian—who "abused his authority" and "degraded and embarrassed his students with selfish and sexually charged acts"—should be disbarred if he repeats his acts.

In one of three complaint-affidavits, a student accused Untian of texting her "romantic messages, poems, love notes, and sweet nothings" and invited her to go to Camiguin with another law student, an offer she said she declined. She could not easily ignore the unwelcome advances "for fear of reprisal," she said.

Another student alleged the professor showed her a photo of a naked woman who supposedly looked like her and teased her about it within hearing distance of other students. The incident made her depressed and unable to participate in a scheduled moot court competition, she said.

The third student said she clarified a question Untian asked during recitation by saying "Sir, come again?" He allegedly responded: "What? You want me to come again? I have not come the first time and don't you know that it took me five minutes to come, and you want me to come again?" He recounted the incident to almost all of his classes, she said.

Responding to the allegations, Untian said the complaints were made by students who failed his classes in the 2001-2002 school year. He also claimed that none of them showed embarrassment or discomfort at the time, the Court said.

But the Court found that his answers to the charges were a substantial admission coupled with justifications, according to the April 10 ruling seen Wednesday.

On the first student, Untian said his texts of "luv u" and "miss u" were "friendly text messages sent without malice especially considering that they were misspelled."

On the second student, he said he showed her the photograph—allegedly confiscated from another student—"in the spirit of their open and uninhibited relationship."

On the third, he said the "come again" remark was meant to be a joke directed at himself. "Never use slang language in my class because you might be misinterpreted," he said he told the student. He claimed she even laughed at the joke.

In its 2017 resolution, the IBP Board of Governors ruled that Untian was not guilty of violating the anti-sexual harassment law because there was no evidence he demanded or requested sexual favors from the complainants.

But the SC ruled that an offer for sex is not necessary for there to be sexual harassment, because a "superior's conduct with sexual underpinnings, which offends the victim or creates hostile environment would suffice."

Citing another decision, 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."

"Clearly, respondent abused the power and authority he possessed over the complainants. His sexually laced conduct had created a hostile and offensive environment which deeply prejudiced his students," the Court ruled.

In his separate opinion, Leonen said Untian "exceeded his male privilege," noting that the Court's ruling "acknowledges the persistence of patriarchy in our society."

"Respondent breached his professional relationship with his students when he took liberties with, trivialized, and then embarrassed them. By engaging in talk with undisguised sexual overtones, he forced himself on his students," he wrote.

"He created an unnecessary burden on his students, who had to find ways to avoid both the unwanted advance and the embarrassment that they, to begin with, wanted no part of," he added.

Leonen said he understood that the Court's deliberations would have resulted in a unanimous vote for the professor's disbarment.

"Had this not been the first time that this Court was required to penalize a law professor for sexually harassing his students, I would have maintained that respondent be disbarred to uphold the profession's standards of moral integrity," he opined.

The main decision was written by Associate Justice Jose Reyes Jr., with concurrences from all the sitting magistrates at the time except Justices Mariano del Castillo, Estela Perlas-Bernabe, and Francis Jardeleza, who were on leave when the case was decided. —KG, GMA News