CASE 1.
Disobeying an Informal Order
Mario is working as a clerk in a tax collector’s office. Due to staff shortage, he also
performs the task of flag raising over the office building as part of his daily activities,
even if it is not part of his official job description.
One day, the governor of their district, Mr. Santiago passed away. Three (3) years ago,
Mario’s best friend was murdered during a riot allegedly orchestrated by Mr. Santiago.
Nonetheless, the state secretary passes an order to all district collectors, to keep the
national flag at “half-mast” (flag flying below the summit of the pole to mourn a death of
a person) over their offices.
Mario have read the order of the state secretary. He felt angry with what he presumes
as mockery of the national flag in respect to what happened to his best friend. He
decided not to report to the office next morning and kept the door key of the rooftop
where the flag was located to himself. He is confident that there will be no formal
punishment which can be given to him because flag raising and putting it half-mast were
not part of his official duty. Mario believes that his boss may reprimand him informally
but he doesn’t care anymore because he thinks that Mr. Santiago killed his best friend.
QUESTION: Do you think Mario has made the right decision? Explain your
answer.
ANSWER:
In my perspective, Mario didn't choose wisely. Mario's acts are unethical, despite the
fact that he is under emotional stress as a result of the loss of his best buddy. Mario did
not perform his duties, but he did place his officers in a chosen position while delaying
the raising of the flag. He made the immoral decision to jeopardize everyone's jobs
rather than expressing his emotional turmoil with his subordinate and coworkers. For his
immediate supervisor, Mario is making things difficult. His best friend's death was not
related to Mr. Santiago, but he lacks any evidence to support this. Mario should have
told his immediate superior if flag raising was not part of his formal job description
before choosing not to do so, even if it was.
CASE 2. Returning Unspent Money
Jerome is running Children's Joy Foundation, Inc. to help street children. He receives a
government grant of one million pesos for a project to teach out-of-school youths who
live in the streets of their city. A year passes, Jerome managed to utilize only Php
500,000 from the grant. Despite his best efforts, he couldn’t convince many poor
children or their families to join his program.
As per the grant rules, Jerome has to return all the unspent money back to the
government by the end of March 31 st. But his colleague Raniel says: “If we honestly
return the remaining Php 500,000 from the grant, the government officials may think
that we are amateurs and ineffective in running the foundation, and they may
substantially reduce our grant next year or even worse, they may not give us any
project in the future. We should ask for the help of our chief accountant to manipulate
our account books and reflect that majority of the grant was utilized for education. Many
other foundations are doing the same thing. There wouldn’t be a problem since nobody
will raise an objection, as long as we offer the 20% of the remaining grant to our
accountant. Although it sounds unethical, we will not use the money for our personal
needs and we will use it for the street children only. Hence, our act is fully ethical and
moral.”
QUESTION: What should Jerome do with the money?
ANSWER:
CHILDREN'S JOY FOUNDATION, INC.
The Children's Joy Foundation, Inc. reaches out to the larger populations of
underprivileged, neglected, and poor children around the world, particularly the destitute
children in the Philippines, by putting into place programs and services that assist them
in achieving their goals and developing into productive, accountable, and responsible
citizens in their communities and throughout the country.
Since returning the money to the government right now is what an ethical person would
do, Jerome should do so. Given that Jerome was only able to use 50% of the grant
money, either the government granted an excessive amount of money or Jerome did
not put out his best effort to use the money for the street children. Jerome should return
the funds since it is unethical to pay the head accountant to distort the accounts, and
the truth will eventually come out.
CASE 3. Man of Word or Man of money?
Jake is a brilliant math teacher in a private international school and gets a monthly
package of Php 40,000. Another school in Manila offers him a package of Php 70,000.
He makes a verbal commitment to the Manila school principal and says, “Sure, I’ll join
your school by next month.“
But when Jake submits his resignation to his current school, its principal requests him to
stay and offers a new package of Php 90,000.
QUESTION: Should Jake take back his resignation? Explain your answer.
ANSWER:
From an ethical perspective, the contract must be honored even if it is accepted
verbally. And though the counter offer of Jake’s current school is higher, Jake has a
moral obligation to remain consistent with his original intention, which is to join the
Manila school.
