CEBU INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY – UNIVERSITY

N. Bacalso Avenue, Cebu City, Cebu

Chemical Engineering Laws and Ethics

ChE 512 – V1

Case Study for

Chemical Engineering Laws and Ethics

Submitted to:
Engr. Jennifer M. Fernandez

Submitted by:
Dellosa, Vienel May
Santos, Juhlian
Zafra, Blarey Jylkinns
1| Chemical Engineering Law of 2004

Issue:

The Board of Chemical Engineering decided to change the relative weight of each
subject of the chemical engineer licensure examination. The relative weight of the Physical
and Chemical Principles subject was increased from 30% to 50 % while the relative
weights of both the Chemical Engineering and General Engineering subjects were lowered
from 40% to 30% and 30% to 20%, respectively.

The Board defended its decision by stating that the Physical and Chemical Principles
subject covers topics that are mostly used and thus deemed more practical by chemical
engineers in their practice. The change will be made effective starting May 2019.

Law Violated:

This is a violation of section 15 (Scope of Examination) under Article III (Licensure

Examination and Registration) of Republic Act No. 9297 or the Chemical Engineering
Law of 2004, which was signed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on May 13, 2004.

Explanation:

The Board of Chemical Engineering cannot make this change because Section 15 states
that the licensure examination shall cover, but shall not be limited to, the following
subjects: Physical and Chemical Principles; General Engineering; and Chemical
Engineering: Provided that the relative weight of Chemical Engineering is not less than
forty per centum (40%).

The relative weights of all the subjects can still be changed as long as the relative weight
of the Chemical Engineering subject will not be less than 40%. In the issue, the relative
weight of the Chemical Engineering subject was changed from 40% to 30%. This is a clear
violation of Section 15. Changes can still be done with regards to the relative weight of
each subject as long as those changes are in line with the stipulations of Section 15.
1| Chemical Engineering Law of 2004

Issue:

The Roster of Chemical Engineers is a list of all duly licensed and registered chemical
engineers kept by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC). In this list the names,
registration numbers and places of business of all duly licensed and registered chemical
engineers are stated.

The PRC has not updated the Roster in the last 10 years and has only provided copies
to a few selected individuals and companies. Many chemical engineers who requested to
view the Roster were turned down and told to leave. The PRC denies that it is violating
any laws.

Law Violated:

This is a violation of section 28 (Roster of Chemical Engineers) under Article IV

(Practice of Chemical Engineering) of Republic Act No. 9297 or the Chemical Engineering
Law of 2004, which was signed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on May 13, 2004.

Explanation:

Section 28 states that the PRC shall keep a roster of all duly licensed and registered
chemical engineers, stating their names; registration numbers and places of business and
that the PRC shall regularly update such roster and make it available to all interested
parties. In the issue, the PRC clearly violated this section by not regularly updating the
Roster and by not making it available to all interested parties.

The licensure examination for chemical engineers is held twice a year. This means that
twice a year new chemical engineers become licensed and registered. This also means that
the Roster of Chemical Engineers should be updated at least twice a year. Interested parties,
like licensed and registered chemical engineers, engineering companies, and people and
companies dealing with licensed and registered chemical engineers, are within their right
or legal capacity to view and ask for copies of the Roster.
2| Chemical Engineering Code of Ethics

Issue:

Engr. Blarey Jylkinns Zafra is the founder of Zafra Industries, a large engineering firm
that specializes in the construction, maintenance and operation of chemical plants in the
Philippines. Engr. Vienel May Dellosa is the owner of the Dellosa Placement Agency.

Zafra Industries has recently acquired a PhP 10 billion contract for the construction
and maintenance of a chemical plant owned by JG Summit Holdings. For this project Engr.
Zafra will need to hire at least 100 chemical engineers. Engr. Dellosa organized a job fair
for Engr. Zafra in one of her malls in Cebu, the Dellosa Plaza.

Engr. Zafra promised to pay the chemical engineers he will hire PhP 150,000 per month
net of taxes. A total of 3,000 chemical engineers applied, of which 122 of them were hired
and chosen by Engr. Zafra himself. Eighty of the chemical engineers hired were still
working for other companies when they were hired. They had to resign before the start of
the project.

When the chemical engineers received their first monthly paycheck, they only received
PhP 15,000. They also did not receive any of the benefits Engr. Zafra promised them. Engr.
Dellosa defended Engr. Zafra by pointing out that they signed a contract that did not state
when they were going to start receiving a monthly pay of PhP 150,000. Engr. Dellosa also
said that the other promised benefits will only be given when the company starts making a
profit from the project, which the chemical engineers were not told about when they were
hired.

Law:

This is a violation of section 2 (Relation with Peers), sub-section 2.5 of the Code of
Ethics for the Practice of Chemical Engineering, which was adopted and promulgated by
the Board of Chemical Engineering through Resolution No. 1, Series of 2009, and
reinforced by Section 46 of Rule IX in the Implementing Rules and Regulations for
Republic Act No. 9297.
Explanation:

Sub-section 2.5 of Section 2 states that chemical engineers shall not attempt to attract
another chemical engineer from another employer by false or misleading pretenses. In the
issue, it was stated that Engr. Zafra promised to pay the chemical engineers he will hire
PhP 150,000 per month net of taxes. He also promised to give other benefits.

Out of the 3000 applicants, 122 chemical engineers were hired. Eighty of those
chemical engineers were already working for another company. They decided to leave their
current employers to pursue a promising career and generous pay from Engr. Zafra’s
company. They were attracted by Engr. Zafra’s many promises.

The chemical engineers later discovered that Engr. Zafra gave them false promises and
mislead them into leaving their previous employers. They only received one-tenth of the
monthly pay they were promised and none of the benefits they were told they would
receive. Engr. Zafra used false pretenses to attract and convince them to work for his
company.

This is considered unethical. Engr. Zafra, being a chemical engineer himself, mislead
other chemical engineers for his own benefit. This is against Sub-section 2.5 of Section 2
of the Code of Ethics for the Practice of Chemical Engineering.
2| Chemical Engineering Code of Ethics

Issue:

BJV Engineers Limited is an engineering firm founded by Engr. Blarey Jylkinns Zafra
and Engr Vienel May Dellosa. Engr. Zafra specializes in environmental engineering while
Engr. Dellosa specializes in air quality management. The firm was approached by Oriental
Industries Private Limited, a company that produces synthetic zeolites, to optimize their
annual production by improving the chemical reactions involved in the sonication and
hydrothermal processes.

Engr. Dellosa and Engr. Zafra agreed to take on the project despite not having prior
experience in production optimization. Their firm received a generous down payment from
Oriental Industries. The company’s president at some point described Engr. Dellosa as an
expert in production optimization, a statement which Engr. Dellosa did not deny.

Law Violated:

This is a violation of section 1 (Fundamental Guiding Principles), sub-section 1.3 of

the Code of Ethics for the Practice of Chemical Engineering, which was adopted and
promulgated by the Board of Chemical Engineering through Resolution No. 1, Series of
2009, and reinforced by Section 46 of Rule IX in the Implementing Rules and Regulations
for Republic Act No. 9297.

Explanation:

Sub-section 1.3 of Section 1 or the Fundamental Guiding Principles of the Code of

Ethics for the Practice of Chemical Engineering states that chemical engineers shall
commit to perform professional services only in areas of their competence. In the issue, it
was stated that both Engr. Zafra and Engr. Dellosa do not have prior experience in
production optimization and that they specialize in environmental engineering and air
quality management, respectively. They, notwithstanding their lack of prior experience and
competence, agreed to undertake the project. This is considered unethical. The two
chemical engineers should have refused the project and referred their client to another
engineering firm or chemical engineer with the experience and competence to undertake
the project effectively and promptly. It was also stated in the issue that Engr. Dellosa did
not deny being an expert in production optimization, which is also considered unethical
since it is also against Sub-section 1.3 of Section 1 which also states that chemical
engineers should not be described as an expert if without experience and qualifications.
3| Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines

Issue:

Engr. Marvin Garcia theoretically devised a process that could increase the yield and
efficiency of a certain process. The result did not come easily for him and he needed
assistance for his research, thus he hired Engr. Ekin Guias. Engr. Guias assisted Engr.
Garcia in his research which was conducted in Engr. Garcia’s home laboratory. During the
span of Engr. Garcia’s work, Engr. Guias secretly stole the information and results of Engr.
Garcia’s work. At the time that the research was done, Engr. Guias filed the patent first
without the knowledge of Engr. Garcia. Engr. Garcia then filed the patent for his research
and found out that Engr. Guias filed for the patent first.

Law:

This is a violation of Section 28 (Right to a Patent) of Chapter III (Right to a Patent)

of Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, which was
signed by President Fidel V. Ramos on June 6, 1997.

Explanation:

When the case was bought to the court by Engr. Garcia who accused Engr. Guias
of stealing his research, the court ruled in favor for Engr. Guias since Engr. Garcia’s claim
to the patent and evidence that the research was stolen by Engr. Guias was insufficient. In
his defence, Engr. Guias claimed that he did the research independently and he did not steal
the research.

With insufficient evidence on the claim of Engr. Garcia, the patent would belong to
Engr. Guias since he filed first for the same invention in accordance to Republic Act No.
8293 Chapter III, Section 28 which states that if two (2) or more persons have made the
invention separately and independently of each other, the right to the patent shall belong to
the person who filed an application for such invention, or where two or more applications
are filed for the same invention, to the applicant who has the earliest filing date or, the
earliest priority date.
3| Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines

Issue:

The issue involves two parties, Mr. Ryan V. Tautho the owner of a cement
manufacturing company and Mr. Limel M. Crusis a process engineer employed by Mr.
Tautho for the said company. Mr. Crusis sold a Computer Program to a Microsoft that
could fix a glitch in their system, this created a conflict on who owns the right to the
computer program since the code was done during the time of his employment and the
computer used to write the code was the company computer.

The computer program was sold for 1 million US dollars so Mr. Tautho felt entitled to
the money and argued that the rights to the work belonged to the company since the
resources of the company was used to produce the work. To get the copyright of the
computer program, Mr. Tautho hired a lawyer to hasten the process.

Law:

This is a violation of Sub-Section 178.3 of Section 178 (Rules on Copyright

Ownership) of Chapter VI (Ownership of Copyright) of Republic Act No. 8293 or the
Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, which was signed by President Fidel V.
Ramos on June 6, 1997.

Explanation:

The lawyer explained to Mr. Tautho that the copyright belonged to Mr. Crusis since it
is stated in the REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8293 Chapter VI, Section 178 that although the
resources of the company and time of employment was used, since the work was not part
of his job as a process engineer, therefore the copyrights belongs to Mr. Crusis and the
copyright would only belong to the employer if the work is the result of the performance
of his regularly-assigned duties, unless there is an agreement, express or implied, to the
contrary.

Mr. Tautho was still adamant that the copyright belongs to the company since part of
the work of a process engineer is to use the computer to control process parameters, thus
he brought the case to the court and sued Mr. Crusis. The case went on for two years before
the court reached the verdict, the court awarded the copyright to Mr. Crusis in accordance
to REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8293 Chapter VI, Section 178.
4| Health and Safety Laws

Issue:

Engr. Vienel May Dellosa and Engr. Blarey Jylkinns Zafra, founders of VMB
Industries, decided to expand the product portfolio of their company by going into the
drinking water business. They constructed a plant in Cebu. The testing of the drinking
water was done in a private laboratory not accredited with the Department of Health. Both
Engr. Dellosa and Engr. Zafra defended their decision by pointing out that the laboratory
that conducted the tests, though not accredited, are the same as those done by an accredited
laboratory.

Law Violated:

This is a violation of Section 12 (Examining Laboratories and Submission of Water

Samples) of Chapter II (Water Supply) of Presidential Decree No. 856 or the Code on
Sanitation of the Philippines, which was signed on December 23, 1975 by President
Ferdinand E. Marcos.

Explanation:

Section 12 states that the examination of drinking water shall be performed only in
private or government laboratories duly accredited by the Department of Health and that it
is the responsibility of operators of water systems to submit to accredited laboratories water
samples for examination in a manner and at such interval prescribed by the Department of
Health. Both Engr. Dellosa and Engr. Zafra broke the law by deciding to have the drinking
water tested by a laboratory not duly accredited by the Department of Health.

They can say that the tests conducted by their chosen laboratory are the same as those
done by a duly accredited laboratory, but this is against the law and there is no assurance
that all the tests are exactly the same. There is also no assurance that the employees have
enough knowledge and experience to conduct such tests.
4| Health and Safety Laws

Issue:

Engr. Blarey Jylkinns Zafra owns a company that supplies water to a medium-sized
community in Cebu. He decided to physically connect the public water system to another
water supply without regularly examining the quality of its water to establish that the water
is safe and potable. Engr. Zafra defended his decision by pointing out that the owner of the
other water supply gave him his personal assurance that the water being supplied is safe
and potable.

Law Violated:

This is a violation of Sub-Section 13d of Section 13 (Other Protective Measures) of

Chapter II (Water Supply) of Presidential Decree No. 856 or the Code on Sanitation of the
Philippines, which was signed on December 23, 1975 by President Ferdinand E. Marcos.

Explanation:

Sub-Section 13d states that no person charged with the management of a public water
supply system shall permit any physical connection between its distribution system and
that of any other water supply, unless the latter is regularly examined as to its quality by
those in-charge of the public supply to which the connection is made and found to be safe
and potable. Engr. Zafra broke the law by allowing a physical connection between his
distribution system and that of another water supply without regularly examining the
quality of its water to establish that the water is safe and potable. A personal assurance
from the owner of the other water supply is not enough.
5| References

1 Republic Act No. 9297

Chemical Engineering Law of 2004
The LAWPhil Project
https:// http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2004/ra_9297_2004.html

2 Code of Ethics for the Practice of Chemical Engineer

3 Republic Act No. 8293

Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines
The LAWPhil Project
https:// http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1997/ra_8293_1997.html

4 Presidential Decree No. 856

Code on Sanitation of the Philippines
The LAWPhil Project
https:// http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1975/pd_856_1975.html