Armando G. Yrasuegui Vs Philippine Airlines

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

Caption:

Title of the case: Armando G. Yrasuegui vs Philippine Airlines


Citation: G.R. No. 168081
Date Promulgated: October 17, 2008
Respondents: Philippine Airlines, Inc.
Petitioners: Armando G. Yraseugui
Ponente: Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes

Facts:

Petitioner Armando G. Yrasuegui was a former international flight steward of Philippine Airline,
Inc. He stands five feet and eight inches. As mandated by the Cabin and Crew Administration
Manual of PAL, the ideal weight is 166 pounds, given that the proper weight for a man his height
is around 147 to 166 pounds.

On 1984, the petitioner had a weight problem, this prompted PAL to advise him on extending his
vacation leave from December 29, 1984 to March 4, 1985.

The petitioner was allowed to return to work once he lost all excess eight but his weight problem
recurred. He again went on leave without October 17, 1988 to February 1989.

Despite the lapse of a ninety-day period given him to reach his ideal weight, petitioner remained
overweight. On January 3, 1990 the petitioner was informed by PAL that he is to remain
grounded until such time that he satisfactorily complies with the weight standards. He was also
directed to report every two weeks for weight checks however, petitioner failed to comply with
the weight requirement.

On April 17, 1990, petitioner was formally warned that a repeated refusal to report for weight
check would be dealt with accordingly however, the petitioner failed to comply. On June 26,
1990, petitioner was required to explain his refusal to undergo weight checks.

On June 15, 1993, petitioner was formally informed by PAL that his services are terminated
effective immediately, due to his inability to prescribe with the ideal weight “and considering the
utmost” extended to him “which spanned a period a total of almost five years”, as stated by
respondent.

Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

Issues(s):

Whether or not the petitioner was validly dismissed for his failure to meet the standards of PAL

Ruling:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding that the weight
standards of PAL are reasonable. Hence, the petitioner was legally dismissed for he repeatedly
failed to meet the prescribed weight standards. Herein, the Court also modified the decision 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.

You might also like