Macunay, Domingo Jr. C.

F/10:30-1:30
Ceit 29-902E

ARTICLE VI
PENAL PROVISION AND ASSISTANCE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

Case 1
Company Samson, a newly build American call center company in the Philippines
wants to gain a permit in compliance for the government requirements. Under the
government policy a company must complete all permits in order for them to continue its
production and the last requirement is about cables. It is a permit in terms of building
network facilities in which the company must have a good cabling installment of their
network. And the problem is the manager of the company wants it to be done immediately
but do not have a Professional Electronics Engineer in contact. So in the end the manager
hired a registered electronics engineer to examine the facilities and make him sign the
papers so it the permit can be processed. The registered engineer then proceeds to
supervise and sign the papers.

Analysis and Conclusion:

The registered engineer failed to follow the law regarding his field which is the R.A
9292 Electronics Engineering Law of 2004 in Article Vi of the Penal Provisions and assistance
of Law enforcement agencies under Section 35 letter G. This section states that “ Any
person, except the Professional Electronics Engineer or Electronics Engineer in charge , who
shall sign for any electronics engineering work , or any function of electronics engineering
practice , not actually performed by him/her”.
In this case according to the law on PECE should only be the one to supervise and
consult building network facilities. The PECE should only be the one to sign the papers
regarding in getting the permit for the cable installation. It is unlawful to practice a
profession or to use titles or letters which would infer professional competence, without
holding a valid license. That is in this case the engineer is only a registered ECE not a
professional ECE.
If the company still proceeds to process the papers and the government finds out
about this matter the engineer may face a punishment which he/she must pay a fine of not
less than One hundred thousand pesos nor more than One million pesos or by imprisonment
of not less than six months nor more than six years, or both, in the discretion of the court.
To sum it up, it was unethical for the engineer to be part of a project in which he was
not licensed as a professional electronics engineer. He must stop the company in processing
the papers or he must face a terrible punishment.

Case 2
Alpha is a P.Eng. employed by EngInc, an engineering company. As Chief Project
Engineering, Alpha is in charge of a project for BigGuy, and important client of EngInc.
BigGuy and Alpha have several disagreements over the design that Alpha has developed.
BigGuy wants a cheaper, more conventional solution. Alpha is convinced that the design is a
"masterpiece" and believes that BigGuy "doesn't have an ounce of imagination". Alpha
simply shrugs off BigGuy and refuses to discuss any other alternative.BigGuy is furious and
phones Beta, P.Eng., the president of EngInc, to yell and complain about Alpha. BigGuy
threatens to hire another engineering firm to complete the design according to BigGuy's
wishes.You work for EngInc as an intermediate design engineer. Beta calls you into a
private office and closes the door. Beta asks you to review Alpha's design and instructs you
Macunay, Domingo Jr. C. F/10:30-1:30
Ceit 29-902E

to keep the review a secret from Alpha. Beta explains that Alpha is a senior engineer who
has been with EngInc for 28 years and could be "a bit sensitive at times".

Analysis and Conclusion:

The ethical responsibilities of the engineer include:

 77.1.i-ii Duties of actions of the engineer to the public and to his employer;
 77.2.ii To regard the duty to the public welfare as paramount; and
 77.7 The actions of another professional engineer are applicable.
It would be professional misconduct to

 72(2)(a) negligently not maintain reasonable and prudent standards;

 72(2)(c) not report a situation which may endanger the safety or welfare of the
public;
 77(2)(d) make to reasonable provision for complying with appropriate statutes; and
 77(2)(j) to be disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional.
Alpha is another professional engineer, and therefore it is necessary that you and Beta
act at all times with fairness and loyalty (77.1.i) and with courtesy and good faith (77.7.i).
In addition, as Alpha is still employed by EngInc, according to 77.7.ii, it would be unethical
to accept an engagement to review the work of another practitioner for the same employer
except with the knowledge of the other practitioner.
One may suggest to Beta to discuss the issues with Alpha, but not in the presence of the
client, BigGuy. It should be emphasized that the purpose of providing engineering services
is create a design that safeguards the economic interests, as well as others, of the client.
Consequently, an unconventional design, no matter how imaginative or correct, that
unnecessarily causes increased economic costs on the client should be cautioned against if
there are cheaper alternatives that continue to satisfy other requirements of protecting the
public welfare (77.2.i), the environment, etc.
Additionally, it may be considered to be professional misconduct to provide a design that
does not make reasonable provision for safeguarding the finances of the client under
72(2)(b). If the masterpiece is unnecessarily extravagant with the sole purpose of allowing
Alpha to demonstrate his abilities, this could even potentially be seen as negligence if the
design would not meet the standards that a reasonable and prudent practitioner would
maintain in these circumstances under 72(2)(a).

ARTICLE II
PROFESSIONAL REGULATORY BOARD OF ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING

Case 1

Tau, the owner of a house in the City of Alpha, Ontario, was notified by the city that
the condition of the foundation walls of his house violated the standards set out in the city's
property standards by-law. The city, being concerned that the foundation walls had
deteriorated to the point of being structurally unsafe, ordered Tau to obtain a written report
by a professional engineer as to the walls' condition. Omega prepared a report stating that
he had inspected the foundation and that the foundation walls appeared to be "structurally
sound and capable of safely sustaining the house for many more years".
Tau submitted Omega's report to the city. In response, the city sent a letter to Tau
with a copy to Omega pointing out the city's observations regarding the deterioration of the
walls, including evidence of significant water permeation, together with photographs taken
by the city's inspector. In the letter, the city requested the condition of the foundation be
reassessed and a response be made to the city within two weeks. Tau was unaware that
Omega would be waiting for authorization for him to spend more time on the project and
Macunay, Domingo Jr. C. F/10:30-1:30
Ceit 29-902E

accordingly did not contact Omega and request him to respond. Omega did not follow up
with either Tau or the city.
Following a second request to Tau, copied to Omega, Omega responded by letter to the city,
advising that he had never examined the interior of the walls, only the exterior and
admitted the photographs provided by the city indicated that the foundation was structurally
unsound.

Analysis and Conclusion:

The actions include:

1. Tau's house has deteriorated to the point of raising the notice of the city.
2. Omega prepared a report stating the foundation walls appeared to be "structurally
sound".
3. Omega did not examine the interior walls.
The question indicates that Omega was licenced, but it does not mention that he had a
Certificate of Authorization to provide engineering services to the public. If he did not have
such a certificate, one could allege professional misconduct by 72(2)(g) breach of the Act...
.By not inspecting the interior of the walls, one could allege professional misconduct by
72(2)(a) negligence as one would suspect that a professional engineer asked to inspect
walls would, at the very least, inspect both sides.
By attempting to assist Tau in not repairing the walls, one could allege professional
misconduct by 72(2)(b) as Omega would not be safeguarding the life of Tau and others.The
report does not state Omega's area of competence but if he not trained in civil engineering,
one could allege professional misconduct by 72(2)(h) by undertaking an inspection which
would fall under the specialization of a civil engineer.
By submitting a report which could have the potential of the city by-laws not being enforced
in a situation where they are being contravened, one could allege professional misconduct
by 72(2)(d) in attempting to allow Tau to not comply with local by-laws.
The letter from the city was in response to the report sent by Omega and as the
photographs appear, by the third paragraph, to provide sufficient evidence to refute the
report which was submitted and no further inspection was really required. Additionally, as a
professional engineer, he was obligated by 77.6 to co-operate in working with other
professionals on a project. If the inspector is also a professional engineer, he has further
obligations from 77.7.i.
As mentioned in my answer to part (a), not only could the actions taken by Omega be
alleged to be professional misconduct, but he would be in violation of subsection 12(2) of
the Act and under subsection 40(1), he would be guilty of an offence.

Case 2
Prodigy is a professional engineer who is employed on a full-time basis by MajorEng,
a large engineering firm. However, for a number of reasons, Prodigy is unhappy and for
some time has been thinking about looking for a new job. Although Prodigy's current
employment at MajorEng provides good pay and interesting work, Prodigy is finding it
difficult to work with Overseer, a professional engineer who is Prodigy's supervisor at
MajorEng.Since joining MajorEng a year ago, Overseer has frequently made derogatory
jokes and remarks about Prodigy's race and religion—sometimes even in meetings with
other engineers and clients. On many occasions, Prodigy has informed Overseer that such
remarks are offensive, hurtful, and inappropriate and has asked Overseer to stop. Overseer
refuses to do so and says that Prodigy should "toughen up and learn to take a joke" if
Prodigy expects to have a successful career at MajorEng.Recently, Prodigy met with a
professional engineer colleague who is a vice president at EngCo, another engineering
company. Upon hearing that Prodigy was interested in considering other opportunities, the
colleague offered Prodigy a part-time job to work in the evenings and on weekends on a
Macunay, Domingo Jr. C. F/10:30-1:30
Ceit 29-902E

trial basis as an engineer for EngCo. Prodigy would work under the colleague's supervision
with the intent that in a few months, if Prodigy preferred working at EngCo, Prodigy would
resign from MajorEng and become a full-time employee of EngCo.

Analysis and Conclusion:

The actions include:

1. Prodigy is employed by MajorEng.

2. Prodigy is being supervised by Overseer.
3. Overseer has made derogatory jokes and remarks about Prodigy's race and religion
in private and public.
4. Prodigy has been offered part-time employment with EngCo.
There are no further circumstances.
The ethical responsibilities of the engineer include:

 77.1.i Duties of action to his engineer to his employer and colleague;

 77.5 The possibility exists for moonlighting, and
 77.7 The actions of another professional engineer are applicable.
It would be professional misconduct to

 72(2)(i) not make prompt disclosure of his part-time work, and

 72(2)(n) harass.
Overseer's jokes and remarks are not aligned with his ethical duty to act with fairness to
his subordinate by 77.1.i and his actions would not appear to be treating another
practitioner with what one would consider courtesy by 77.7.i.It would appear that Overseer
is possibly guilty of professional misconduct with respect to both harassment by 72(2)(n)
and, as a supervising engineer, failure to maintain the Ontario Human Rights Code with
respect to employment 72(2)(d).As Prodigy has already approached Overseer on this issue,
Overseer cannot claim ignorance on this matter.
According to the Ontario Human Rights Code, Prodigy has the right to freedom from
harassment in the workplace by another employee because of race and creed. Out of
fairness to his supervisor (by 77.7.i), he should inform Overseer using an appropriate
medium of the specific statutes which Prodigy believes are being violated and that he feels
that they are applicable. If Overseer continues in his behaviour, Prodigy should report the
situation with supporting documentation to the Human Resources department of MajorEng.
If neither of these produces an appropriate result, Prodigy would be correct to file a
complaint with the Complaints Committee of PEO.
By 77.5, Prodigy has an ethical responsibility to inform EngCo in a written statement as to
his current employment status, he must determine that this part-time employment will not
affect his current employment, and he must inform his employer that he is taking on this
part-time employment.By 77.1.i, he must deal fairly with his current employer and
therefore ensure that the part-time work does not affect his performance. By 77.1.iii, he has
a duty to personal integrity in ensuring that neither his employer nor EngCo is adversely
affected by his dual-employment status.
Finally, by 72(2)(i), it would be professional misconduct not not make prompt, voluntary
and complete disclosure of a shared interests between the work performed by the two
companies, either direct or indirect, that might in any way be, or be construed as,
prejudicial to Prodigy's professional judgment to an employer or to a client without making
a full disclosure. Specifically, this is very similar to 72(2)(i)4: Contracting in the
practitioner's own right to perform professional engineering services for other than the
practitioner's employer.Specifically, Prodigy should ensure that any work he does for EngCo
does not directly or indirectly compete with MajorEng.