HOLY ANGEL UNIVERSITY

A research case brief submitted to Engr. Michael V. Almeida

as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the subject

CELAWSEC

Submitted by:

Aquino, Angelyn I.
Dalusung, Johana Alexi M.
Kho, Elaiza Nicole L.
Tabang, Jericho Roi E.
Tolentino, Cathrine Joy S.

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING PROGRAM

School of Engineering and Architecture

Holy Angel University

September 5, 2022

FORMAT OF CASE BRIEFING AND SYNTHESIS OF CASES:

 HOLY ANGEL UNIVERSITY

I. FACTS

Describe the events between parties leading to the case. Include those facts that are
relevant to the issue and to the reasons for its decision. You will not know which facts are
relevant until you know what the issue or issues are.

Example: If the issue is whether there is a breach of contract under Article 1305 – Article
1422 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, relevant facts include the fact of contract
and the acts constituting breach of contract to comply with the essential
contract obligations.

The case is all about the construction of a major TV tower/antenna and a TV station is
filming the construction for their news broadcasts. The antenna was designed by Antenna
Engineering, Inc. Riggers, Inc., a small local firm, was contracted to raise and assemble the
antenna. Due to the issue between the Riggers company and the Antenna Engineering
company regarding the design, it caused the collapse of the TV antenna that cost the lives of
the seven Riggers.
The major TV antenna collapsed due to the wrong construction method of the Riggers
company in the segment with the microwave basket. The Riggers company did everything
they could do to make a way for the cables to not interfere with the baskets and safely attach
the segment. The Riggers company asked for help from the Antenna company and asking for
redesigning or an alternative on how they could safely attach the segment, but Antenna
company declined. The Riggers then requested a permission to remove the baskets to clear
the lifting cables and then reinstalled after the segment was attached, but Antenna company
still refused. They pointed out that the Riggers had approved the initial design and it was
stated in the contract that the warranty would be void if they touched the baskets. Due to the
experiences of the Antenna company from their previous projects where they allowed to
remove the baskets and cost them a great deal of money to fix the problem since the baskets
were not reinstalled properly. The Riggers understood the Antenna company, and it resulted
in their having to find their own way of safely attaching the segment to the structure. They
came up with a plan and tried to discuss it with the Antenna company, but they did not
review it and let the Riggers do the installation on their own to avoid the potential liability.
The Riggers company is a small firm without an engineer. Because of this, the Riggers
proceeded with their plan even without any approval from professionals just to follow the
scheduled time to finish the project, but in return it resulted the structure to collapse and the
deaths of 7 workers.
At some point, people might think that the Riggers should have realized that the
placement of the hoisting lugs was poor before they approved the plan. However, Riggers,
Inc. workers did not have the same level of technical expertise as Antenna company. They
weren't trained engineers, but rather skilled individuals. The Antenna Engineers knew that
Riggers employees lacked the necessary technical expertise to make optimal solutions to the
problem. Because of this, the Antenna company did not have a liability for what happened,
for they did their role to design and be approved by the riggers. In terms of legal liability,
 HOLY ANGEL UNIVERSITY

they did not do anything bad. However, in terms of social responsibility, their ignorance
caused the deaths of seven people. In the end, Antenna Engineering ignored their social
responsibilities and avoided legal consequences. That is why it is important that engineers
also know their social responsibilities to protect the public welfare while they test designs, as
what was written under Canon 1 of the Fundamental Canons of Ethics.

II. ISSUE(S)

The issue is the question that must be decided to resolve the dispute between the
parties in the case before it. To find the issue, you must identify the rule in the code of ethics
that governs the dispute and ask how it should apply to those facts. You usually write the
issue for your case brief as a question that combines the rule of code of ethics with the
material facts of the case, that is, those facts that raise the dispute. Although we use the word
“issue” in the singular, there can be more than one issue in a case.

Example: Do project delay due to lack of materials and incompetent workers constitute
breach of contract?

 Do the segment will be placed safely if the bolts used has the standard shear strength
as what was needed for the structure based on national building code?

 If the Riggers get a third-party engineer for redesigning the plan, will the death of the
seven workers will be prevented?

 What would happen if the Antenna company reviewed the proposed solutions of the
Riggers and consider their responsibilities to protect public welfare as what was
written in Fundamental Canons of Ethics under Canon 1?

III. RULING

The ruling is the case decision on the question that is before it. There are number of ruling
statements, but if they do not relate to the question before it. The ruling or holding provides
the answer to the question asked in the issue statement. If there is more than one issue, there
may be more than one holding. The ruling is supported by reasoning explaining and
supporting the case decision.

Example: In a case of breach of contract, the case will refer to the provisions of Article 1305
- 1422 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, state the substantial and
procedural requirements for breach of contract to exist and cite the earlier
rulings in the case.
 HOLY ANGEL UNIVERSITY

Article 1192 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines,

In case both parties have committed a breach of the obligation, the liability of the first
infractor shall be equitably tempered by the courts. If it cannot be determined which of the
parties first violated the contract, the same shall be deemed extinguished, and each shall bear
his own damages
Article 1172 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines,
Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation
is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the
circumstances.

Article 694 (number 3)

A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything
else which: (1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or (2) Annoys or offends
the senses; or (3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or (4) Obstructs or
interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water; or (5)
Hinders or impairs the use of property

In this case of protecting the safety of the health and welfare of the public, the case will refer
to the provisions of Article 695 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, state the easement
against nuisance where it affects the safety

Article 2169, . When the government, upon the failure of any person to comply with health
or safety regulations concerning property, undertakes to do the necessary work, even over his
objection, he shall be liable to pay the expenses.

IV. SYNTHESIS

You have to analyze the problem and outcome of each case and the applicable area of the
code of ethics to form a general principles about the code.

The problem was circulated between Riggers, Inc. and Antenna Engineering where it
caused a tower collapse because of the failed bolts and the inaccurate model/plans that
caused 7 lives to be lost.