ARMANDO YRASUEGUI Vs PAL

ARMANDO YRASUEGUI vs PAL
Facts: Petitioner was an international flight steward of PAL, standing at 5’8” inches, weighing 147 to 166 pounds. In
the PAL Cabin and Crew Administration Manual, the ideal weight for his body frame is 166 pounds. His weight
problem stemmed from 1984. PAL advised him to go on an extended vacation leave to address his weight problems.
Upon failing to do so, they mandated him to go on a leave without pay to address this again. Upon meeting the
standards, he was allowed to return to work, but was then made to take a leave without pay because of his recurring
weight problem. On April 1989, petitioner weighed 209 pounds, 43 pounds above his ideal weight. As per company
policy, he was removed from flight duty and was instructed to lose weight, which will be checked on certain dates set
by them. He was also free to avail the services of the company physician. When the day of his weight check came,
he gained more pounds, retaining his off-duty status.
He was visited by the PAL Line Administrator to check on his progress. He then made a commitment in writing that
he will make progress until December 1989, addressed to the Cabin Crew Group Manager. However, he remained
overweight, and when he was directed to report every 2 weeks for weight checks, he failed to do so. PAL constantly
reminded him to be present on the designated weight checks.
PAL finally served petitioner a Notice of Administrative Charge for violation of company standards on weight
requirements. He was given ten (10) days from receipt of the charge within which to file his answer and submit controverting
evidence. He did not deny being overweight, but alleged that PAL had condoned his violation because they had taken no action
in addressing his case, and that the company had not been fair in its treatment who are similarly situated.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioner has been illegally dismissed, stating that his weight did not hamper the performance of his
duties.
Issue/s: W/N the petitioner is legally dismissed on the grounds of obesity under the labor code of the Philippines?
Ruling: Yes. His dismissal will fall under Art. 282 (e) of the Labor Code. The CA explains that the violated standards in this case
were not mere orders of the employer, but the continuing qualifications an employee must adhere to and maintain in order to
qualify and keep his or her position in the company. Furthermore, petitioner argues that his case is also analogous to the Nadura
case, with his claims that obesity is “physical abnormality and/or illness.” The Court reiterates the following points:
1. Nadura was not decided under the Labor Code

2. There is no flight safety issues under Nadura
3. Nadura was dismissed due to illness, while Ysaruegui was dismissed for failure to meet the weight
standards of PAL
4. Nadura’s case is on separation pay and damages, while the current case is on meeting the standards of
PAL
5. Nadura was not accorded due process, unlike the latter who was given leniency to comply with PAL’s
weight standards
The evidence also shows that obesity is not an illness, since he was able to lose reduce weight in between the years,
and that it is possible for him to lose weight with determination, proper attitude and self-discipline. He was also given
a lot of considerations, such as availing the services of the company physician (as advised by PAL), and weight
check-in, which he failed to report to without valid explanations. He was also not morbidly obese, as compared to the
Cook case.
II. The dismissal of petitioner can be predicated on the bona fide occupational qualification defense.
Some employers are allowed to hire employees limited to sex, religion, or national origin. Petitioner argues that there
is no statute to justify his dismissal. The test of reasonableness of the company policy must be parallel to the BFOQ.
In this case, PAL’s policy is reasonable, because of the nature of its business and reasons of public policy. Being a
common carrier, they are bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of its passengers. It relies on its
employees to safely transport its passenger who are on board the aircraft. The weight standards of PAL impose flight
safety, since the cabin crew’s task is to keep the passengers safe. Their body weight and size are important factors
to consider in emergency cases. Airlines need cabin attendants who have the necessary strength to open emergency doors,
the agility to attend to passengers in cramped working conditions, and the stamina to withstand grueling flight schedules.

ARMANDO YRASUEGUI Vs PAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARMANDO YRASUEGUI Vs PAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARMANDO YRASUEGUI Vs PAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARMANDO YRASUEGUI vs PAL

1. Nadura was not decided under the Labor Code

You might also like