Pede po bang magpatulong sa case study ko.. Wala po kasi ak0ng idea kung an0 ang gagawin k0 dito. First time k0 lang kasi nagka case study... Eto po yung binigay saken..
A public agency retains the services of ABC Architects and Engineers to perform a major scheduled overhaul of a bridge. ABC Architects and Engineers retains the services of Engr. Enriquez, a civil engineer, as its subconsultant to perform bridge inspection services on the bridge. Engr. Enriquez's scope of work is solely to identify a pavement damage on the bridge and report the damage to ABC for further review and repair.
Three months prior to the beginning of the scheduled overhaul of the bridge, while across the bridge, SP03 Manik Manoog loses control of his patrol car. The vehicle crashed into the bridge wall. The wall failed to restrain the vehicle, which fell to the river below, killing SP03 Manik Manoog.
While conducting the bridge inspection, and although not part of the scope of services for which he was retained, Engr. Enriquez notices an apparent pre-existing defective condition in the wall close to where the accident involving SP03 Manik Manoog occured. Engr. Enriquez surmises that the defective condition may have been a contributing factor in the wall failure and notes this in his engineering notes. Engr. Enriquez verbally reports this information to his client, which then verbally reports the information to the public agency. The public agency contacts ABC Architecs and Engineers which then contacts Engr. Enriquez and asks Engr. Enriquez not to include this additional information in his final report since it was not part of his scope of work. Engr. Enriquez states that he will retain the information from his engineering notes but not include it in the final report, as requested. Engr. Enriquez does not report this information to any other public agency or authority.