You are on page 1of 3

1.

Deductive Reasoning
Yes.
Although it is a recognized principle in workmen's compensation law that an
employee injured in, going to, or coming from his place of work is excluded from the
benefits of workmen's compensation acts, this rule however admits an exception
known as proximity rule. Under this rule, the right to compensation extends to
disability due to a natural chain of events which is unbroken by efficient intervening
cause.
In this case, Darios death in Nueva Viscaya is chained from his absence in
Nueva Ecija. Such absence should not be considered as efficient intervening cause
because his absence was permitted by his commander due to the issuance of a
night pass. It is also significant to be noted that workmens compensation law is a
social legislation which tends to be applied in favor of labor. Therefore, Darios death
is compensable.
Inductive Reasoning
Dario and his fellow soldier were in Nueva Ecija for special military
operation. They were allowed, by virtue of the issuance of a night pass by their
commander, to visit Darios brother in Nueva Viscaya who had a durian tree.
Incidentally, as his fellow soldier was shooting a durian fruit, it fell on Darios head
which caused his death.
Since Darios absence in Nueva Ecija and his presence in Neuva Viscaya
were permitted by his commander, there is no reason, in principle, why Darios
death should not be compensated.
Alternative Answer
Dario and his fellow soldier were in Nueva Ecija for special military operation.
They were allowed, by virtue of the issuance of a night pass by their commander,
to visit Darios brother in Nueva Viscaya who had a durian tree. Incidentally, as
his fellow soldier was shooting a durian fruit, it fell on Darios head which caused
his death.
This chain of event cannot be considered as unbroken, notwithstanding the
presence of the night pass given by the military commander because such
permission is deemed as a vacation leave considering that their intention to visit
his brother in Nueva Vizcaya was intrinsically private and unofficial. Therefore,
Darios death is not compensable.
2. Deductive Reasoning

(a) In light of justice and equity, I will charge no consultation fee to the Bishop.
(b) I will tell the bishop that under the law, SSS coverage applies to all
establishments and undertakings, whether operated for profit or not, including
educational, medical, charitable and religious institutions and organizations, in
cases of regular employment with the exception of the Government and its
political subdivisions including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Inductive Reasoning
(b) 50 employees under the administration of the Baguio and Benguets Bishop
were refused to be reported for SSS coverage. The Bishop went into the
conclusion that such coverage will entitle his employees to the benefits which
would require the use of public funds. As a consequence of which, it would
violates the Constitution. Such conclusion is absurd as it would discriminate
laborers employed in a church. This is in consonance with the principle that in
case of doubt, the law should be tilted in favor of labor. Therefore, it is logical to
say that the Bishop should allow his employees to be reported for SSS coverage.
3. Deductive Reasoning
No.
Francis Co does not fall to any categories provided for by Solo Parents
Welfare Act. He may be categorized as one if only he solely provides parental
care or support to his child. It is also noteworthy that at the time he volunteered
to support his child, the latter was already 19 years old hence cannot be
considered as child under the Solo Parents Welfare Act. Logically, even if Francis
Co volunteers to solely support his child, he cannot be reasonably considered as
a solo parent as there is no qualified child or children to speak of. Therefore,
Francis Co cannot be considered as a solo parent.
Inductive Reasoning
Francis co is the boyfriend of Precious Lo who abandoned the latter after latter
was raped by Jaime Milares. As a consequence of the rape, Precious Lo bore a
child who allegedly looks like Jaime Milares instead of Francisco. Only on the
19th birthday of the child, Fancis Co volunteered to raise the child considering a
long years of abandonment. Aptly, it can be inferred by analogy that Francis Co
cannot be considered as solo parent as he is not the father of the child.
Moreover, the child is also beyond the contemplation of the law as a child since
he is already of legal age.
4. Deductive Reasoning
Inductive Reasoning

Dr. Galit was hired by Department of health as a Dental aid for 14 years. After
which, he was employed in Luvesco company which was a private company until
it was absorbed by PNOC, a private Government Owned and Controlled
Corporation. PNOC floated a retrenchment package promising to pay two
months salary for every year of service. However, Dr. Galits application for
retrenchment was disapproved; hence he continued working for 17 years until he
retired. Thereafter, it came into his knowledge that two of his co-employees
applications for retrenchment were approved by the PNOC. These lead to his
action to sue the PNOC. Indeed, Dr. Galit should be entitled to totalization as he
would not qualify in his retirement benefits if only the PNOC approved his
retrenchment application. Therefore, I would award Dr. Galit for additional 1
month salary multiplied by his 14 years of service.
5. Attorney Santiago, as requested by attorney kato, obliged himself to do
proctoring. As attorney Santiago holding the examination, he stares at a beautiful
student saying salacious words. Right after the exam, attorney Santiago asked
for the female student her number with the alibi that it is needed by Attorney Kato
for further announcements. Attorney Santiago further said that he might be the
one who will check the test booklets. That night, Attorney Santiago texted the
female student, even though in the name of attorney Kato, it shows that it was
Attorney Santiago manifesting his sexual desire. By analogy of the
circumstances, there is no reason why attorney Santiago should not be held
liable for sexual harassment.
6.