Digest No 3 - Armando G. Yrasuegui vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc (GR No. 168081)

Armando G. Yrasuegui vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc.
[GR No. 168081. October 17, 2008.]
Facts:
Petitioner Armando G. Yrasuegui was a former international flight steward of respondent

Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL). He stands five feet and eight inches (5’8”) with a large body
frame. The proper weight for a man of his height and body structure is from 147 to 166 pounds,
the ideal weight being 166 pounds, as mandated by the Cabin and Crew Administration Manual
of PAL.
The weight problem of petitioner dates back to 1984. Back then, PAL advised him to go
on an extended vacation leave from December 29, 1984 to March 4, 1985 to address his weight
concerns. Apparently, petitioner failed to meet the company’s 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 which prompted another leave without pay from October 17, 1988 to
February 1989. On April 26, 1989, petitioner weighed 209 pounds. In line with 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 that he may avail of the services of the company physician should he wish to do so. He
was advised that his case will be evaluated on July 3, 1989.
Several times during his weight checks, it was discovered that instead of losing, he
gained weight. Consequently, his off-duty status was retained. After PAL Line Administrator
Gloria Dizon’s visit at this residence, petitioner made a commitment to reduce weight until
December 31, 1989, in a letter addressed to Cabin Crew Group Manager Augusto Barrios.
Despite the lapse of a ninety-day period given him to reach his ideal weight, petitioner
remained overweight. PAL decided for him to remain grounded until such time that he
satisfactorily complies with the weight standards. Again, he was directed to report every two
weeks for weight checks to which petitioner failed to adhere. 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. Again, he failed to report
for weight checks, although he was seen submitting his passport for processing at the PAL Staff
Service Division.
Agapito, Rosemund Edrielynne M. Yrasuegui vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc. | 1

On April 17, 1990, petitioner was formally warned that a repeated refusal to report for
weight check would be dealt with accordingly. Again, petitioner ignored the directive and did not
report for weight checks. On June 26, 1990, petitioner was required to explain his refusal to
undergo weight checks.
When petitioner tipped the scale on July 30, 1990, he was still way over his ideal weight
of 166 pounds. From then on, nothing was heard from petitioner until he followed up his case
requesting for leniency on the latter part of 1992. He still was overweight when he weighed on
August 20, 1992 and November 5, 1992.
On November 13, 1992, PAL finally served petitioner a Notice of Administrative Charge
for violation of company standards on weight requirements, and he was given ten (10) days from
receipt to file his answer and submit controverting evidence. On December 7, 1992, petitioner
submitted his answer where he did not deny being overweight. What he claimed, instead, is that
his violation, if any, had already been condoned by PAL since “no action has been taken by the
company” regarding his case “since 1988”. He also claimed that PAL discriminated against him
because “the company has not been fair in treating the cabin crew members who are similarly
situated”.
On December 8, 1992, a clarificatory hearing was held where petitioner manifested that
he was undergoing a weight reduction program to lose at least two (2) pounds per week so as to
attain his ideal weight. On June 15, 1993, petitioner was formally informed by PAL that due to
his inability to attain his ideal weight, “and considering the utmost leniency” extended to him
“which spanned a period covering a total of almost five (5) years”, his services were considered
terminated “effective immediately”. His motion for reconsideration having been denied,
petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PAL.
On November 18, 1998, Labor Arbiter Valentin C. Reyes ruled that petitioner was
illegally dismissed. Both parties appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
On October 8, 1999, the Labor Arbiter issued a writ directing the reinstatement of petitioner
without the loss of seniority rights and other benefits. On February 1, 2000, the Labor Arbiter
denied the Motion to Quash Writ of Execution of PAL. On March 6, 2000, PAL appealed the
denial of its motion to quash to the NLRC. On June 23, 2000, the NLRC affirmed the Decision
of the Arbiter PAL moved for the reconsideration to no avail.

Thus, PAL elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari.
The CA reversed the NLRC and 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. On May 10, 2005, the CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Hence,
this petition for review on certiorari claiming that he was illegally dismissed.
Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioner was not unduly
discriminated against when he was dismissed while other overweight cabin attendants were
either given flying duties or promoted
Ruling:
No. The Court agreed with the CA that “the element of discrimination came into play in
this case as a secondary position for the private respondent in order to escape the consequence of
dismissal that being overweight entailed. It is a confession-and-avoidance position that impliedly
admitted the cause of dismissal, including the reasonableness of the applicable standard and the
private respondent’s failure to comply”.
Petitioner cannot establish discrimination by simply naming the supposed cabin
attendants who are allegedly similarly situated with him. Substantial proof must be shown as to
how and why they are similarly situated and the differential treatment petitioner got from PAL
despite the similarity of his situation with other employees.
Indeed, except for pointing out the names of the supposed overweight cabin attendants,
petitioner miserably failed to indicate their respective ideal weights; weights over their ideal
weights; the periods they were allowed to fly despite their being overweight; the particular
flights assigned to them; the discriminating treatment they got from PAL; and other relevant data
that could have adequately established a case of discriminatory treatment by PAL. In the words
of the CA, “PAL really had no substantial case of discrimination to meet”.
Normally, a legally dismissed employee is not entitled to separation pay. Exceptionally,
separation pay is granted to a legally dismissed employee as an act of “social justice”, or based
on “equity”. In both instances, it is required that the dismissal (1) was not for serious
misconduct; and (2) does not reflect on the moral character of the employee. The Court is not

blind to the fact that he was not dismissed, however, for any serious misconduct or to any act
which would reflect on his moral character. The Court also recognize that his employment with
PAL lasted for more or less a decade.
Wherefore, the appealed Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED but modified in
that petitioner Armando G. Yrasuegi is entitled to separation pay in an amount equivalent to one-
half (1/2) month’s pay for every years of service, which should include his regular allowances.

Digest No 3 - Armando G. Yrasuegui vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc (GR No. 168081)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest No 3 - Armando G. Yrasuegui vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc (GR No. 168081)

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

Digest No 3 - Armando G. Yrasuegui vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc (GR No. 168081)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Armando G. Yrasuegui vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc.

[GR No. 168081. October 17, 2008.]

Petitioner Armando G. Yrasuegui was a former international flight steward of respondent

Agapito, Rosemund Edrielynne M. Yrasuegui vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc. | 1

Agapito, Rosemund Edrielynne M. Yrasuegui vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc. | 2

Agapito, Rosemund Edrielynne M. Yrasuegui vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc. | 3

Agapito, Rosemund Edrielynne M. Yrasuegui vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc. | 4

You might also like