Xavier University law prof suspended for sexual harassment

MANILA, Philippines — Stressing that he abused the power he possessed over the victims, the Supreme Court suspended a lawyer and law professor for making sexual advances to his students at Xavier University in Cagayan de Oro City.

The SC en banc suspended Cresencio Co Untian Jr. from law practice for five years and prohibited him from teaching law in any school for 10 years.

This is a graver penalty than the two-year suspension previously imposed by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in 2017.

The high court warned Untian that a repetition of the similar act will be dealt with more severely.

Complaint

Three female students at Xavier University filed a complaint against Untian for sexual harassment in 2002. 

One of the female students said Untian sent her romantic messages, poems and love notes and invited her to go to Camiguin, an offer she turned down.

The other complained that the law professor showed her a naked picture of a woman that seemingly resembled her and teased her with the photo within earshot of other students.

The third complainant said she asked the Untian to repeat a question a saying “Come again” during a class recitation. The professor supposedly 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?”

The court ruling said Untian’s response would show that he “substantially” admitted the accusations against him, although providing justifications for their acts.

The law professor explained that adding “luv u” and “miss u” to his messages to the first student was done “without malice especially considering that they were misspelled.”

For the second incident, Untian said he showed the photograph “in the spirit of their open and uninhibited relationship.”

As for the incident when he infused sexual innuendo in a recitation, Untian said he just injected humor during class.  

‘Abuse of his position of authority’

The initial ruling of IBP said Untian was not guilty of violating Republic Act 7877 or the Sexual Harassment Act because there was no evidence to show the law professor demanded or requested sexual favors from the complainant.

But the SC decision penned by Associate Justice Jose Reyes Jr. stressed it is not necessary that there was an offer for sex for there to be sexual harassment.

“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. In what was supposed to be a safe place for them to learn and develop, they were instead subjected to unwarranted sexual advances,” the court ruling said.

“What makes respondent’s act of sexual harassment even more reprehensible is the fact that he is both a professor and a member of the legal profession,” it also stressed.

Under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in an unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

“Respondent, as a molder of minds of soon-to-be lawyers should guide his students to behave and act in a manner consistent with the lofty standards of the legal profession. Instead, he abused his position of authority creating an offensive and uncomfortable atmosphere in school,” the decision read.

In a separate concurring opinion, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said the ruling acknowledges the persistence of patriarchy in the society.

“The historical and cultural expression of male privilege—or simply, the privilege of males qua males over females qua females—still exists. It is a powerful, dominant, molding attitude that is nefariously manifested when demeaning and distressing representations of any woman, especially when clearly identified, are disguised as jokes,” Leonen said.

He added: “While normally entertaining for most men, this is generally callous to women, whose dignity may suffer.”