GG

Case Title: Armando G. Yrasuegui vs Philippine Airlines

G.R. Number & Date: G.R. No. 168081

Nature of the Case:

Doctrine/Principle: Due Process of Law

Petitioners: Armando G. Yrasuegui, an international flight steward who was dismissed because of his
failure to adhere to the weight standards of the airline company. He stands five feet and eight inches with
a large body frame.

Respondents: PAL

Facts:

Yrasuegui was a former international flight steward of PAL. He was five feet and inches tall with a
large body frame. The proper weight for a man of his height and body structure is from 146 to 166
pounds, the ideal weight being 166 pounds, as mandated by the Cabin and Crew Administration
Manual of PAL.
Weight problem of the petitioner dates back to 1984. Back then, PAL advised him to go on an
extended vacation leave from December 29, 1984 to Mach 4, 1985 to address his weight
concerns. He failed to meet the companys weight standards, prompting another leave without pay
from March 5, 1985 to November 1985.
After meeting the required weight, petitioner was allowed to return to work. But his weight problem
recurred. He again went on leave without pay from October 17, 1988 to February 1989.
On April 26, 1989, Yraseugui weighed 209 pounds, 43 pounds over his ideal weight. In line with
the company policy, he was removed from flight duty effective May 6, 1989 to July 3, 1989.
He was formally requested to trim down to his ideal weight and report for weight checks on several
dates. He was also told to avail the services of the company physician should he wish to do so.
Petitioner gained more and more weight instead of losing one. After the visit of PAL Line
Administrator, Gloria Dizon, petitioner made a commitment to reduce weight in a letter addressed
to the Cabin Crew Group Manager.
Petitioner failed to report for weight checks. Despite that, he was given one more month to comply
with the weight requirement. He was reminded that his grounding would continue pending
satisfactory compliance with the weight standards.
Petitioner after ignoring the directive and not having reported for weight checks in 1990 requested
for leniency on the latter part of 1992. He was still overweight.
PAL finally served petitioner a Notice of Administrative Charge for violation of company standards
on weight requirements on November 13, 1992.
Petitioner in his answer did not deny being overweight. He claimed that PAL had condoned his
violation since no action has been taken by the company regarding his case since 1988.
On June 15, 1993, PAL terminated petitioners services effective immediately due to his inability to
attain his ideal weight considering the utmost leniency extended to him which spanned a period of
5 years.
Petitioners MR was denied hence this complaint.

Labor Arbiter: Ruled that the petitioner was illegally dismissed and ordered PAL to reinstate him to his
former position. The LA held that the weight standards of PAL are reasonable in view of the nature of the
job of the petitioner. However, the weight standards need not be complied with under pain of dismissal
since his weight did not hamper the performance of his duties.
NLRC: Affirmed the decision of the LA. Like the LA, NLRC found the weight standards of PAL to be
reasonable. However, it found as unnecessary the LA holding that petitioner was not remiss in the
performance of his duties as flight steward despite being overweight.

CA: Reversed the ruling of the NLRC. CA opined that there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the NLRC because it looked at wrong and irrelevant considerations in evaluating the evidence of the
parties. The weight standards of PAL are meant to be a continuing qualification for an employees
position. The failure to adhere to the weight standards is an analogous case for the dismissal of an
employee under Art 282(e) of the Labor Code in relation to Art 282(a). The relevant question to ask is not
one of willfulness but one of reasonableness of the standard and whether or not the employee qualifies or
continues to qualify under this standard. It is obvious that the issue of discrimination was only invoked for
purposes of escaping the result of his dismissal for being overweight. CA held that the weight standards of
PAL are a bona fide occupational qualification which in case of violation justifies an employees separation
from the service.

Petitioners Arguments: Petitioner claims that he was illegally dismissed. To buttress his stance, he
argues that:

1. His dismissal does not fall under 282(e) of the Labor Code.
2. Continuing Adherence to the weight standards of the company is not a bona fide occupational
qualification.
3. He was discriminated against because other overweight employees were promoted instead of
being disciplined.

Respondents Arguments: (see facts)

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was legally dismissed?

FALLO: WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED but MODIFIED in
that petitioner Armando G. Yrasuegui is entitled to separation pay in an amount equivalent to one-half
(1/2) month's pay for every year of service, which should include his regular allowances.
SO ORDERED.

HELD: Yes.

1. The obesity of petitioner is a ground for dismissal under Art 282(e) of the Labor Code.

A reading of the weight standards of PAL would lead to no other conclusion that they constitute a continuing
qualification of an employee in order to keep his job. Petitioner was dismissed for his failure to meet the
weight standards of PAL and not because of an illness. Petitioner was accorded with utmost leniency. He
was given more than 4 years to comply with the weight standards of PAL. Petitioner claims that obesity is
a disease but this goes against the fact that he was able to reduce weight from 1984 to 1992 which clearly
shows that it was possible for him to lose weight. He also repeatedly failed to report when required to under
weight checks without even offering a valid explanation. Thus, his fluctuating weight indicates absence of
willpower rather than an illness.

2. The dismissal of petitioner can be predicated on the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ)
defense.

The primary objective of PAL in the imposition of the weight standards for cabin crew is flight safety. It
cannot be gainsaid that cabin attendants must maintain agility at all times in order to inspire passenger
confidence on their ability to care for the passengers when something goes wrong. It is not farfetched to
say that airline companies, just like all common carriers, thrive due to public confidence on their safety
records. People, especially the riding public, expect no less than that airline companies transport their
passengers to their respective destinations safely and soundly. A lesser performance is unacceptable.

Petitioner is also in estoppel, he does not dispute that the weight standards of PAL were made known to
him prior to his employment. In fact, he never questioned the authority of PAL when he was repeatedly
asked to trim down his weight.

Notes:

In British Columbia Public Service Employee Commission vs The British Columbia Government and Service
Employees Union, the Supreme Court of Canada adopted the so called Meiorin Test in determining whether an
employment policy is justified. Under this test, (1) the employer must show that it adopted the standard for a purpose
rationally connected to the performance of the job; (2) the employer must establish that the standard is reasonably
necessary to the accomplishment of that work-related purpose; and (3) the employer must establish that the
standard is reasonably necessary in order to accomplish the legitimate work- related purpose. Similarly, in Star
Paper Corporation v. Simbol, this Court held that in order to justify a BFOQ, the employer must prove that (1) the
employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job involved; and (2) that there is
factual basis for believing that all or substantially all persons meeting the qualification would be unable to properly
perform the duties of the job.

We are not unmindful that findings of facts of administrative agencies, like the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, are
accorded respect, even finality. The reason is simple: administrative agencies are experts in matters within their
specific and specialized jurisdiction. But the principle is not a hard and fast rule. It only applies if the findings of facts
are duly supported by substantial evidence. If it can be shown that administrative bodies grossly misappreciated
evidence of such nature so as to compel a conclusion to the contrary, their findings of facts must necessarily be
reversed. Factual findings of administrative agencies do not have infallibility and must be set aside when they fail
the test of arbitrariness.
Here, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC inexplicably misappreciated evidence. We thus annul their findings.
To make his claim more believable, petitioner invokes the equal protection clause guaranty of the Constitution.
However, in the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be
invoked. Put differently, the Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals. Indeed, the
United States Supreme Court, in interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment, which is the source of our equal protection
guarantee, is consistent in saying that the equal protection erects no shield against private conduct, however
discriminatory or wrongful. Private actions, no matter how egregious, cannot violate the equal protection guarantee.