Case Study

NAME: SAIRA D. VILLAR DATE: OCT.
2021
SEC: BSTM 3101 INSTRUCTOR: MR. LAHUYLAHUY
03 Review 1 - ARG
Directions: Read and analyze the following cases and answer the corresponding question for each
case.
CASE 1. Disobeying an Informal Order
Mario is working as a clerk in a tax collector’s office. Due to staff shortage, he also performs the task
of flag raising over the office building as part of his daily activities, even if it is not part of his official
job description.
One day, the governor of their district, Mr. Santiago passed away. Three (3) years ago, Mario’s best
friend was murdered during a riot allegedly orchestrated by Mr. Santiago. Nonetheless, the state
secretary passes an order to all district collectors, to keep the national flag at “half-mast” (flag flying
below the summit of the pole to mourn a death of a person) over their offices.
Mario have read the order of the state secretary. He felt angry with what he presumes as mockery of
the national flag in respect to what happened to his best friend. He decided not to report to the office
next morning and kept the door key of the rooftop where the flag was located to himself. He is
confident that there will be no formal punishment which can be given to him because flag raising and
putting it half-mast were not part of his official duty. Mario believes that his boss may reprimand him
informally but he doesn’t care anymore because he thinks that Mr. Santiago killed his best friend.
QUESTION: Do you think Mario has made the right decision? Explain your answer.
ANSWER: Do you believe Mario made the right choice? It's a big NO. I believe he made the wrong
decision since he lacked the legal authority to act in that manner. As he was not involved in the problem,
he should act professionally. He should put his personal issues aside because making decisions,
especially when upset, is not a good idea. Allowing personal issues to affect your job is will just worsen
the situation. It will have a negative impact on your workplace, particularly on one of your coworkers.
We understand why Mario acted in this manner because he has been affected in the past, but he should
act professionally.
CASE 2. Returning Unspent Money
Jerome is running Children's Joy Foundation, Inc. to help street children. He receives a government
grant of one million pesos for a project to teach out-of-school youths who live in the streets of their
city. A year passes, Jerome managed to utilize only Php 500,000 from the grant. Despite his best
efforts, he couldn’t convince many poor children or their families to join his program. As per the grant
rules, Jerome has to return all the unspent money back to the government by the end of March 31st.
But his colleague Raniel says: “If we honestly return the remaining Php 500,000 from the grant, the
government officials may think that we are amateurs and ineffective in running the foundation, and
they may substantially reduce our grant next year or even worse, they may not give us any project in
the future. We should ask for the help of our chief accountant to manipulate our account books and
reflect that majority of the grant was utilized for education. Many other foundations are doing the
same thing. There wouldn’t be a problem since nobody will raise an objection, as long as we offer the
20% of the remaining grant to our accountant. Although it sounds unethical, we will not use the
money for our personal needs and we will use it for the street children only. Hence, our act is fully
ethical and moral.”
QUESTION: What should Jerome do with the money?
ANSWER: Jerome should return the money immediately to the government since that is the expected
action of an ethical person. Since Jerome was unable to use 50% of the grant money, this implies that
Jerome did not exert his maximum effort to utilize the funds for the street children or the government
provided excessive amount of funds. Jerome should return the money because:
 Bribing the chief accountant to manipulate the

 account books are unethical; and
 The lie and deception can always be uncovered.
CASE 3. Man, of Word or Man of money?
Jake is a brilliant math teacher in a private international school and gets a monthly package of Php
40,000. Another school in Manila offers him a package of Php 70,000. He makes a verbal commitment
to the Manila school principal and says, “Sure, I’ll join your school by next month. “
But when Jake submits his resignation to his current school, its principal requests him to stay and
offers a new package of Php 90,000.
QUESTION: Should Jake take back his resignation? Explain your answer.
ANSWER: Man, of Word or Man of Money? From an ethical perspective, the contract must be honored
even if it is accepted verbally. And though the counter offer of Jake’s current school is higher, Jake has a
moral obligation to remain consistent with his original intention, which is to join the Manila school.

Case Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NAME: SAIRA D. VILLAR DATE: OCT.

SEC: BSTM 3101 INSTRUCTOR: MR. LAHUYLAHUY

CASE 1. Disobeying an Informal Order

CASE 2. Returning Unspent Money

QUESTION: What should Jerome do with the money?

 Bribing the chief accountant to manipulate the

You might also like