INTRODUCTION
Every individual faces tough decisions at one point, some are small however,
some are really huge decisions that need thorough and critical thinking
because this will eventually make or break one’s life. In the case provided,
Lilia is contemplating on what to do. She thinks about giving Manuel a second
chance because he is a gem – he is a breadwinner, an extraordinary and
extremely hardworking employee. On the other hand, she also cares about
the other employees who have been loyal to the firm because of how the
management takes care of them. This is a matter of choice and major steps
that Lilia should take in order to keep the work environment healthy and
productive for it to keep going.
In this scenario, it is yet to be proven that Manuel has to do with all the
incidents and that he is innocent until proven guilty. It is also good to point out
that Lilia should also weigh on what is the greater good and the common
good in order to justify her decision to everyone.

I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 

In the case provided, Lilia is given the choice whether to side with the other
employees or give Manuel a second chance? Is losing one great employee a good
choice for the common good? Or will Lilia regret her choice and will this affect their
business in the long run? In the end, Lilia must be able to make the most reasonable
decision for the good of the company.

II. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

 In the facts presented in this case, there is no physical evidence that Manuel
has to do with all these incidents. We can connect this to our topic in
Attribution Process where it involves observing and attributing causes to it.
Observed behaviors are attributed to either internal or external causes.The
labor code states that theft in the workplace is usually considered an act of
gross misconduct which carries instant dismissal. This needs due process in
order to be acted upon in this case, everything that was thrown at Manuel
were all speculations with no grounds or evidence than just his previous
records as an ex-convict. A presumption of innocence means that any
defendant in a criminal trial is assumed to be innocent until they have been
proven guilty, thus Manuel is not liable to be dismissed because everything
are just hearsays and gossips in the workplace.
Lilia must also base her decision on what is the greater good and the
common good. The common good is the idea that whatever serves the
majority in a community is deemed good. It is generally whatever rules or
actions are needed to minimize the disharmony within the community. The
greater good is the idea that there is a standard that we should collectively
reach in order to achieve harmony and peace the community. But let us put in
mind that the greater good is the higher order of good and that can be used
for to address areas where the common good is not inclusive of groups of
people.
The act of speculations must also be addressed in the workplace. Gossips
must not be tolerated because this affects one’s persona and character
especially when the gossips are not true. This spreads hate in the
environment and creates fear and embarrassment from the employee
involved.

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 

 The problem must be addressed by Lilia as the management, the employees
involved, and Manuel as the one being suspected. In order to keep the
workplace at peace and productive. Lilia must take actions such as tracking
down the CCTV cameras in order to be fair with Manuel and the employees.
A meeting or an open forum must be held in order to hear both sides and
present if there are any malicious actions caught on the security cameras.
These questions must be answered in order to find answers furthermore:
1. If you were Lilia, what are you going to do?
Lilia as the manager must call a general meeting in which there is
presence of the Board , employees who speculated, and Manuel to defend
himself from the accusations.
2. Is it right for employees to speculate on Manuel’s possible moves the next
time around? Are there obvious reasons for their speculations? Why?
If I were one of the employees, I would also speculate on Manuel’s actions
because there are obvious reasons for their panic and speculation
because Manuel was always present when these incidents happened.
3. Is Lilia right that Manuel’s presence is only circumstantial or pure
coincidence?
Based on the facts provided, it is pure coincidence because they do not
have and physical or substantial evidence to prove that Manuel is guilty
and that they did not even catch him doing the act itself.
4. Is Lilia right in hiring Manuel in the first place?
Lilia was right in hiring Manuel because this just shows that there is no
discrimination in the workplace even if Manuel was convicted of robbery.
5. What will you do if you were Lilia?
If I were Lilia, I would check the security cameras inside the firm if these
are available and I will temporarily transfer Manuel to another department
in order to monitor him and keep him away from gossips and
discrimination from his workmates.

IV. References
 https://ntrygg.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/common-good-vs-greater-good/