In the Philippine corporate landscape, the Human Resources (HR) department is theoretically the first line of defense against workplace harassment. However, when HR exhibits bias—whether through inaction, victim-blaming, or protecting high-value perpetrators—the victim is often left feeling legally stranded.

Under Philippine law, an employer’s failure to act or an HR department’s biased handling of a complaint does not extinguish the victim's rights; rather, it often broadens the scope of legal liability for the company.

1. The Statutory Framework

Workplace harassment in the Philippines is primarily governed by two landmark pieces of legislation:

Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995): This law mandates that employers create a Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI) to handle sexual harassment cases. If HR fails to facilitate this or if the CODI is biased, the employer can be held solidarily liable for damages.
Republic Act No. 11313 (Safe Spaces Act / Bawal Bastos Law): This expanded the definition of sexual harassment to include gender-based lapses in both physical and online workspaces. It specifically requires employers to provide "protective measures" and "investigate and resolve" complaints within a specific timeframe.

2. Identifying HR Bias and Misconduct

HR bias typically manifests in ways that violate the principle of Administrative Due Process. Common examples include:

Refusal to accept a formal written complaint.
Leaking confidential testimony to the accused.
Pressuring the victim to "settle" or "forgive" to maintain office harmony.
Deliberate delays in forming a CODI.

3. Legal Avenues Beyond the Company Walls

When internal mechanisms fail due to HR bias, the complainant should escalate the matter to the following external authorities:

A. Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)

If the harassment or HR’s bias leads to a hostile work environment, the employee may file a Request for Assistance (RFA) through the Single Entry Approach (SEnA). This is a mandatory conciliation-mediation process. If mediation fails, the case can graduate to a formal labor dispute before a Labor Arbiter.

B. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)

If the HR bias results in the employee being forced to resign (Constructive Dismissal) or being terminated for filing a complaint (Retaliation), a complaint for Illegal Dismissal can be filed. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that a "hostile environment" created by employer inaction constitutes constructive dismissal.

C. Civil and Criminal Courts

Civil Action: Under the Civil Code of the Philippines (specifically Articles 19, 20, and 21 regarding Human Relations), a victim can sue for moral and exemplary damages if HR’s bad faith caused mental anguish or damaged their reputation.
Criminal Action: If the harassment falls under RA 7877 or RA 11313, a criminal case can be filed directly with the Prosecutor’s Office, independent of any HR investigation.

4. Strategic Steps for the Complainant

To prevail against a biased HR department, documentation is the most critical asset:

Create a Paper Trail: Always submit complaints via email or received-stamped hard copies. If HR gives verbal "advice," follow up with an email: "As per our discussion earlier, you mentioned that..."
Document the Bias: Keep a log of how HR handled the case. Note dates of meetings, who was present, and any dismissive statements made by HR officers.
Exercise the Right to Counsel: Philippine law does not prohibit an employee from seeking legal advice during an internal investigation, especially if they suspect the process is compromised.
Bypass HR if Necessary: If the HR Manager is the harasser or is clearly compromised, the complaint should be elevated directly to the Head of Legal, the Board of Directors, or the company’s global ethics hotline if it is a multinational firm.

5. Employer Liability for HR Inaction

Under the Safe Spaces Act, employers who "condone" or "fail to act" on documented harassment complaints are subject to administrative fines and may have their business permits revoked in extreme cases of negligence. Furthermore, the Doctrine of Vicarious Liability ensures that the company remains responsible for the "acts or omissions" of its employees, including biased HR officers.