Case Analysis #1

MR. RICKY PACTON VS. XYZ UNIVERSITY

As what we can observed in the problem of Mr. Pacton, if I am the Vice

President for Academics, I will suspend him because according to the Faculty

Manual of the school, a full-time faculty member should report or ask

permission if he will teach to other school within 2 weeks from the start of the

semester. But Mr. Pacton did not do that for about 3 years. And that is too long,

he violated the rule of the school for a long period of time.

Case Analysis No. 2

REPRESENTATIVE COLLEGE STUDENT VS. IMMACULATE COLLEGE

I can say that the contention of the student was not valid because they

violated a rule and that rule should be follow. Yes there is a Republic Act 7079

which aims to promote awareness and develop young talents in journalism. It is

also intended to uphold and protect the freedom of the press at the campus

level. But their school set a rules that obscene and sexually explicit image are

not accepted, even in the ruling of the Philippines, bold tabloids are not

accepted, if there are some, that are illegal. Still, they should follow the law, yes

they have the freedom to express, but what is freedom? It is doing what is right.
Activity #1

The Supreme Court has an impression that he was a part-time teacher

because of his load was not tally to the minimum load of a full-time teacher or

he gets only less since 1992 to 1999 and also lack of minimum required hours

to stay in the school. And also when he is not teaching there is no evidence that

he perform other tasks other than teaching. And also he is still working at the

Provincial Government of Nueva Vizcaya, a person cannot employ full-time at

the same time.

Activity #2
 Art. 281. Probationary employment. Probationary employment shall not

exceed six (6) months from the date the employee started working,

unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer

period.
 Art282 An employer may terminate an employment for any of the

following causes:

 Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the

lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with

his work;

 (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;

 (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in

him by his employer or duly authorized representative;

 (d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the

person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or

his duly authorized representatives; and

 (e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.

 ART. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of

personnel. – The employer may also terminate the employment of any

employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy,

retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of

the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of

circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on

the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1)

month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the

installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected

thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one

(1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service,

whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in

cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or

undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the

separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-

half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A

fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year.
 ART. 284. Disease as ground for termination. – An

employer may terminate the services of an employee who has been

found to be suffering from any disease and whose continued

employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health as well as

to the health of his co-employees: Provided, That he is paid separation

pay equivalent to at least one (1) month salary or to one-half (1/2) month
 salary for every year of service, whichever is greater, a fraction of at least

six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year.

Art. 281-284 enumerates the grounds for termination of a probationary

employee.

Activity #3

Yes, there is an employer-employee relationship because they talked

about the contract that Ruben will clean the lavatory facilities by having in

exchange the chance of studying at the GOMBURZA College. But Victor has no

relation to that, except that the employer and the employee have a rule that if

Ruben will commit misconduct behavior, the privilege to study at their school will

be terminated. He has the power of control, there is a payment of wages but the

wages was in study form, he has also the power to dismiss Ruben.