Adamson University College of Engineering ELECTRONICS TIONS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MANILA
ECE LAWS Assignment De Guzman, Mara Roselle E. BS ECE/5th year 1. Mrs. Santos borrowed Php2M from Mrs. Aunor. She and her 19-year old son, Luis, signed the promissory note for the loan, which did not say anything about the capacity of the signers.
Mrs. Santos made partial
payments little by little. After seven years, she died leaving a balance of Php 1M on the note.
Mrs. Aunor demanded payment from Lucky who
refused to pay. When sued for the amount, Lucky raised the defense that when he signed the not he was still a minor.
Should the defense be
sustained? Why? 2. Engineer A, employed by Firm X, left Firm X and goes to work for Firm Y, a competitor. A project on which Engineer A was responsible and in-charge was virtually completed, but Engineer A did not sign or seal the construction documents before leaving Firm X’s employment. Engineer B, a principal in Firm X requests Engineer A to sign and seal the drawing. Engineer A refuses to sign or seal the construction documents unless Firm X pays Engineer A, an additional fee. a. Was it ethical for Engineer A to refuse to sign or seal the plans? b. Was it ethical for Engineer B to ask Engineer A to sign and seal the construction documents? c. If an additional work was required on the part of Engineer A, would it be ethical for Engineer A to request additional compensation?
3.
Engr. Sara practicing in State of California requires the services
of an Electronics Engineer in State of Ohio. Engr Sara contacts Engr. Cedie , who is the secretary of the State of Ohio of Professional Engineeers, to request the name of appropriate engineer in State Ohio to performed the required electronics engineering work. Engr. Cedie suggests Engr. Colyn, who Engr. Sara then decides to retain.
Not
satisfied with the services provided by Engr. Colyn, including Engr. Colyn’s lack of regular communication with Engr. Sara, Engr. Sara later contacts Engr. Cedie and tells Engr. Cedie of his general dissatisfaction with Engr. Colyn, but does not first communicate her displeasure to Engr. Colyn.
Engr. Sara also remarks to Engr. Cedie that he is
interested in retaining the services of another electronics engineer for the project.
Soon thereater, Engr. Colyn contacts Engr. Sara and
expresses her strong displeasure toward Engr. Sara for the comments she made to Engr. Cedie. Did Engr. Sara act ethically under the circumstances? Did Engr. Cedie act ethically under the circumstances? Did Engr. Colyn act ethically under the circumstances? Deadline of Submission: July 30,2012 12 noon.
1. The contract is valid as between the parties involved to include Luis being a 19 year old. A party is already capacitated to enter into a contract or possessed the full legal capacity upon reaching the majority age which under the law more particularly under article 234 of the family code.
However, the liability of Luis depends also on his capacity when he entered on said contract. If Luis signed as a debtor or as surety he is liable to the amount of the contract. As a debtor, the contract is the law between the parties. And hence, the contract he entered with the other party becomes the law between which must be compiled with in good faith. The same is true if Luis signed the agreement as a surety. As a surety he warrants that the debt shall be paid and the liability is solidarity. Hence even with the death of the principal debtor he is still liable by reason of warranty and the debt collected from him by reason of solidary liability.
However, if Luis signed the agreement not as a surety but as a mere guarantor his liability is only dependent when liability is only dependent when no property of the principal debtor could answer for the debt. As a guarantor he warrants only the solvency of the principal debtor. And hence for said reason before, the debtor could be collected from Luis the property of the principal debtor must be first be applied and exhausted. And this is known under the law as the right of excussion.
2.
a.) no, engineer A must act with “Fairness and justice when dealing with contracts between his clients or employers and the contractors” as prescribed by the Manual of Professional Practice. His act of refusal
with respect to the signing of the construction document is violative of the aforementioned code. b.) yes, it is ethical for Engineer B to Ask Engineer A to sign and seal the construction documents. Under the Manual of Professional Practice “ Engineers must protect the profession from misunderstanding and /or misrepresentation”, Engineer B merely acted in accordance with the same Manual ” c.) Yes, it is indeed clear that additional work must be duly compensated and the same will not violate any existing law, in fact it is in conformity with public policy and moral. Therefore, Engineer A can properly demand additional pay for additional work and effort rendered by him. 3. a.) Engineer Sara acted unethically by not informing first Engineer Colyn regarding her complaints with respect to the performance of the latter. Instead of confronting her privately, Engineer Sara acted negligently by immediately communicating her dissatisfaction towards Engr. Colyn to a third person, hence, it is violative of MPP which states that “Engineers should directly or indirectly injure the professional reputation, prospects, advancements or practice of other engineers.” b.) Engr. Cedie also failed to act in conformity with the Professional Ethics. She
should
have
maintained
the confidentiality
of the
conversation between her and Engr. Sara. If she had done so, Engr. Colyn’s confrontation with Engr. Sara might have had been avoided. Engineers should not encourage disputes among colleagues in the profession. c.) Engineer Colyn also acted unethically by expressing her “Strong displeasure” towards Engr. Sara. The former should have acted with due respect and observance of proper behavior in expressing her grievance towards Engr. Sara. Although Engr. Sara made unacceptable remarks against her, the behavior she had manifested cannot be tolerated for it will prejudice the reputation of entire Profession.
