MIDTERM EXAMINATION

IN

BAM 193 (GOOD GOVERNANCE AND SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY)

SUBMITTED BY:

Micah Anne C. Olivares

AU-FA2-BMF3-MAIN 2

SUBMITTED TO:

Mrs. Aileen L. Bagasan, MBA

1. In 2017, United Airlines forcibly removed passenger David Dao from Flight 3411. The
airline decided to bump four passengers from the flight in order to fly four United staff
members to a connection point. The airline offered passengers $800 compensation and a
seat on a flight the following afternoon. But no one took the offer. Four passengers were
then selected by the airline to leave without choice. The fourth passenger selected, Dao,
refused to leave the plane, explaining that he was a doctor and had patients to see the next
morning. United employees summoned airport security officers who then forcibly
removed Dao from his seat. Dao’s face slammed into an armrest, and he was dragged off
the plane, bleeding. Other passengers captured the scene on their phones and shared the
videos online, sparking widespread outrage at United.
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/video/united-airlines-grounded?
fbclid=IwAR28_oHv2tfqmjyFk3akVHNFZ0re_axMgw-
NGaYqKLmfawmTMwm1612eHvQ
COMMENT: The United Airlines must give a prior announcement to all the passengers,
so in that case there would be no misunderstanding between the passengers. The airlines
also need to explain the reason why they need to cancel or reschedule the flight of other
passengers. The airport security has no right to harm Dao or anyone from the passenger
since they have their own reason why they need the flight at that time. Having the legal
right to do something does not always imply that it is ethically appropriate, for both
ethical and practical reasons. Legal and ethical rights overlap to a great extent, but not
entirely. Under some circumstances, United Airlines may have had the legal power to
remove passengers from its planes. In the case of passenger David Dao, however, having
that authority did not necessarily make such an action ethically justified.
2. As
we
all
 know compensation or the minimum wage rates is one of the controversial topics in our
country. Many of our fellow Filipino employees has been complaining about the
compensation they had. They thought that it is unfair because when you are an employee
and you work on province you are more likely to received less than the compensation of
the employees who are working in City. I think the number one solution here is to give
fair compensation regardless of what region you are working, since all of the employees
has their own expenses so they are actually doing their very best to get the right
compensation they deserve.

3. [ G.R. No. 221411, September 28, 2020 ]

ITALKARAT 18, INC. PETITIONER, VS. JURALDINE N. GERASMIO,

RESPONDENT.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/sep2020/gr_221411_2020.html

The facts of the case are as follows:

On January 13, 2009, respondent Juraldine N. Gerasraio (Juraldine) filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal, reinstatement, backwages, separation pay, declaration of the quitclaim and release as
null and void, 13th month pay, litigation expenses, damages and attorney's fees, against
petitioner Italkarat 18, Inc. (Company).4

Juraldine alleged that the Company hired him on June 1, 1990. In 1993, he was designated as the
Maintenance Head and Tool and Die Maker until his dismissal on November 20, 2008 on the
ground of serious business losses.5 He claimed that during and prior to the last quarter of 2008,
the Company had repeatedly informed its employees of its proposed retrenchment program
because it was suffering from serious business losses.6 In particular, Juraldine claimed that Noel
San Pedro (San Pedro), the then Officer-In-Charge (OIC)/Manager of the Company, informed
him sometime in November 2008 that the Company was planning to retrench a substantial
number of workers in the Maintenance and Tool and Die Section; and that if he opts to retire
early, he will be given a sum of P170,000.00.7 San Pedro then allegedly cautioned Juraldine that
if he will not accept the offer to retire early, the Company would eventually retrench or terminate
him from his employment, in which case, he might not even receive anything.

COMMENT: About this case, they should have given the right benefits that their employees
deserved. foregoing considered, judgment is hereby rendered DECLARING the complainant to
have been unlawfully dismissed from his job in violation of his right to mandatory statutory due
process, coupled with bad faith and malice aforethought to humiliate his lowly status in the
society. Thus, the respondents are hereby ordered jointly and severally to reinstate the
complainant to his previous work or its equivalent immediately from notice hereof under Article
223 in [relation] to Article 279 of the Labor Code, and to pay him of his partial back wages from
December 2008 to the present in the amount of PHP53,456.00 at PHP13,364.00 per month;
moral damages in the amount of PHP100,000.00; and exemplary damages in the amount of
PHP50,000.00 each plus ten percent (10%) attorney's fees. Further, the respondents are hereby
ordered jointly and severally to deposit the said amounts to the Cashier of this Arbitration
Branch within ten (10) days from receipt hereof.

The LA ruled that Juraldine was only forced to resign because of San Pedro's misrepresentation
that he would be paid P170,000.00 as separation pay. The LA likewise noted that in his
quitclaim, Juraldine still asserted his entitlement to the payment of whatever benefits that may be
due him. In fine, the LA ruled that Juraldine was illegally dismissed.

Cameramen win Supreme court labor case VS. GMA, get backwages

https://www.rappler.com/nation/cameramen-win-supreme-court-labor-case-vs-gma-gets-
backwages/?fbclid=IwAR0mKcZoMfmku3rSMelzoQMOz2cpBYCemF-1t4dL-
caQx67MMd2DXiJJtAU

In a significant labor win for media workers, cameramen of broadcast giant GMA Network were
declared by the Supreme Court to be regular employees entitled to backwages, allowances, and
other benefits.
The Supreme Court (SC) said on Tuesday, September 22, that the Third Division had decided to
order GMA Network to reinstate 30 cameramen and assistant cameramen who were fired by the
network in May 2013.

“The Supreme Court has ordered GMA Network, Inc. (GMA) to reinstate 30 cameramen and
assistant cameramen and pay their backwages, allowances, and other benefits from the time of
their illegal dismissal in 2013 up to the time of their actual reinstatement,” said the SC Public
Information Office in a statement Tuesday.

The Third Division decision, penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, also ordered GMA to
pay attorneys’ fee equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award to each petitioner.

Not only that, “the amounts due to each petitioner shall bear legal interest at the rate of 6% per
annum, to be computed from finality of Court’s decision until full payment,” said the Supreme
Court.

The Supreme Court has asked the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to compute the
monetary awards for each petitioner.
COMMENT: More than the monetary awards, I believe that the cameramen’s case is significant
because of the Court’s pronouncement of what makes a worker a regular employee, a perennial
problem in a contractualization -ridden industry. Despite of the right benefits they deserved they
should value the effort of those men’s who are behind the success of their shows.