REASONING BY ANALOGY

Exercise 1:

Yes. Even though Article 282, Section (a) of the Labor Code states that an employer can only terminate
an employee if serious misconduct or willful disobedience was made in connection with his work,
Section (e) of the same article also considers analogous cases to be tantamount to serious misconduct.
In G.R. No. 193676, the courts considered that stealing a cellphone of a co-employer, even though it is
not to the company nor in connection to his work, is analogous to serious misconduct and thus grounds
for dismissal from work. This was also the ruling of the courts in G.R. 169549 where credit cards were
stolen from a co-worker and was considered as an act of serious misconduct that merits dismissal from
work. A case analogous to serious misconduct, such as stealing from a co-employee, is a voluntary
and/or willful act or omission attesting to an employee’s moral depravity.

Exercise 2:

1. The case was about the execution of an agreement wherein cavans of palay should be regularly
delivered to the plaintiff. However, the petitioners failed to comply to do so and thus, multiple
petitions have been made between the two parties. Plaintiff is a 75 years old woman who has no
living heirs or relatives. Due to this circumstance, the Court deemed the necessity of the
immediate execution of the judgment partially favoring the plaintiff because the agreement is in
the nature of her life pension for her maintenance support and enjoyment. The court also
considered the time interval between the previous execution of judgment to its actual
fulfillment. The purpose of the agreement would be futile if the judgment would be further
delayed for probably 5 years more because the plaintiff might soon die due to her old age.

2. Yes. The agreement is made for the plaintiff’s sustenance until the end of her life. Since 73 years
old is not that far from 75 years old, she is still at a very large risk to die within 5 years, thus not
enjoying the benefit of the agreement.

3. No. The exemption from the rule of immediate execution of judgment would not apply because
there is no compelling or paramount reason to justify the immediate warrant of execution. The
 plaintiff would not be placed in dire financial condition nor be unfair as she would not be badly
needing the cavans because she could easily finance her own maintenance and life support.

4. Yes. Since the agreement is only good until the end of her life, she can only enjoy its benefits
during her lifetime. The five-year survival rate for those diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer is
less than 10 percent. Thus, drawing from the 5 years interval of execution of judgment to actual
fulfillment, the plaintiff might soon die before the actual fulfillment of the agreement and
rendering it futile.