omad;Ms.Beau;evs,nymnym;rudjard; your comments were very well taken.
Allow me to chip-in my 2 cents on the case: The "BOSS" committed an act of constituting sexual harrassment.
section 3 (a) (1) of RA 7877 states that "sexual harasmment is COMMITTED when a sexual favor is made as a condition of... and refusal to the sexual favor may result... to the employees deprivation or impairement of rights"
In this situation, the pretty subordinate did not suffer such. But it is clear that "the BOSS" attempted to commit a sexual harrassment act.
what could be the most appropriate penalty for this? or is this a case of just a mere indecent proposal/seduction?
It would fly in the face of logic if a person, exercising moral ascendency over another being the boss, would be able to escape prosecution for sexual harrassment if he could argue that he is not liable becoz his amorous advances were not contingent on any promise,favor,or accomodation to the victim. To my mind, any one making indecent proposals, who is otherwise prohibited by his status from doing so, commits sexual harrassments if he is in a position to do harm becoz of his position. If his advances are rejected, and he persists in doing so, it creates an intimidating , hostile and offensive environment to the object of his lust. that puts the case squarely under the acts prohibited by RA 7877.
at any rate, before we take action on this case, please take note the decision in the case (GATBONTON vs. NLRC) Jan. 23, 2006, in this case the court rebuke the employer for taking action against the employee based on rules on sexual harassment that have not been published prior to implementation.
Once again, thank you all for your solicited advise.