UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Consti 2

LA Manlangit (B2023) Professor Dante Gatmaytan

Yrasuegui vs Philippine Airlines
GR NO. 148081 – October 17, 2008
Supreme Court of the Philippines Third Division

Labor Code Art. 282. Termination by employer. - An employer may terminate an employment for any of the
following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or
representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized
representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate
member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.

FACTS OF THE CASE

 Armando Yrasuegui is a former international flight steward from PAL. He is 5’8’’ with a large frame.
The proper body for his height is 147-166 pounds; 166 pounds is the ideal weight mandated by PAL
 Yrasuegui’s weight problems date back to 1984.
o extended vacation to address weight concerns on Dec 29, 1984 to Mar 4, 1985, March 5, 1985
to Nov 1985, and Oct 17, 1988 to Feb 1989.
 In April 1989 Yrasuegui weighed 209 pounds. He was removed from flight duty and formally
requested to lose weight and report for weight checks. PAL gave him the option to avail of the company
physician.
 After the first weight check Yrasuegui actually gained weight (215 pounds)
 October 17, 1989: PAL Line Administrator Gloria Dizon visited Yrasuegui’s house to check on the
latter’s progress. Yrasuegui gained weight again (217 poinds), but signed a letter to lose 17 pounds by
the end of the year.
 After the lapse of the period, Yrasuegui was still overweight. PAL made a decision to keep him
grounded (not flying as a steward) until he complies with the weight standard.
 Yrasuegui then failed to report to the every-2-weeks weight checks. He was given one more month to
comply, but he again failed to do so.
 April 17, 1990: Yrasuegui is formally warned that repeated refusal would be dealt with accordingly.
Yrasuegui then ignored another set of weight checks.
 Nothing was heard of from Yrasuegui until he followed up his case requesting for leniency in late
1992. His weight was 219 pounds in August 1992 and 205 pounds in November 1992.
 November 13, 1992: PAL served Yrasuegui a notice of Administrative Charge for violation of
company standards.
 December 7, 1992: Yrasuegui claimed that his violation had been condoned by PAL since no action
has been taken by the company since 1988, and that PAL had discriminated against him because other
overweight employees were getting promotions.
 June 15, 1993: due to inability to attain the ideal weight, PAL formally informed Yrasuegui that his
services were terminated effectively immediately. Yrasuegui filed a case for illegal dismissal.
 Labor Arbiter Valentin C. Reyes’ decision: Yrasuegui was illegally dismissed
o Backwages of P10,500/month from his dismissal until reinstated
o Attorney’s fees of 5% of the total
o The weight standards of PAL were reasonable, but they need not be complied with under pain
of dismissal since they did not hamper the performance of his duties.
o Other overweight employees were given promotions
o Issued a writ of execution direction reinstatement of petitioner
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Consti 2
LA Manlangit (B2023) Professor Dante Gatmaytan
 NLRC Decision: affirmed Labor Arbiter
o Backwages inclusive of allowances and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent
o Obesity is a disease in itself
o PAL’s weight standards also reasonable
o NLRC: the Labor Arbiter should’ve limited himseld to the issue of W/N the failure of petitioner
to attain his ideal weight constituted willful defiance of the weight standards of PAL.
 Court of Appeals Decision: reversed NLRC
o GOD on the part of NLRC because it look at wrong and irrelevant considerations
o The weight standards are a continuing qualification, and failure to adhere to such constituted
an analogous cause for dismissal under Labor Code Art. 282(2) in relation to 282(a).
o The relevant question to ask is one of reasonableness of the standard, and whether or not the
employee qualifies or continues to qualify under this standard
o After denying Yrasuegui’s MFC, CA also held that the weight standards are a bona fide
occuplation qualification (violation justifies termination)

ISSUE/S & RATIO/S

(1) W/N The CA gravely erred in holding that petitioner Yrasuegui’s obesity can be a ground for
dismissal as an analogous case under Labor Code Art. 282(e). HELD: NO. The obesity of petitioner is a
ground for dismissal under Labor Code Art. 282(e).
 A reading of PAL’s weight standards shows that they constitute a continuing qualification of an
employee in order to keep the job. Failure to comply with the ideal weight justifies dismissal.
 Yrasuegui’s reliance on Nadura v. Benguet Consolidated is off-tangent:
Nadura Yrasuegui
Not decided under the Labor Code, but RA 1787 Decided under the Labor Code
Laid off because of illness (asthma) Laid off because of failure to meet weight
standards
Issue was W/N Nadura was entitled to separation Issue is on the propriety of the dismissal itself
pay and damages
Not accorded due process Accorded utmost leniency
 Obesity is not a disease for petitioner; he was able to reduce his weight between 1984 and 1992; he
only lacks the attitude, determination and discipline to continue.
 Petitioner only has himself to blame for the expenses of losing weight. He ignored the suggestion to
consult the company physician and without explanation ignored weight checks.
 Petitioner’s reliance on Bonnie Cook v. State of Rhode Island is inapplicable; Cook was morbidly
obese and petitioner is not. At his heaviest petitioner was less than 50 pounds over ideal weight.

(2) W/N The CA gravely erred in holding that petitioner’s dismissal for obesity can be predicated on
the “bona fide occupational qualification” defense. HELD: NO. The dismissal of petitioner can be
predicated on the bona fide occupation qualification defense.
 Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFQQ): employment in particular jobs can’t be limited to
persons of a particular sex, religion, or national origin unless shown by the employer that such is an
actual qualification for performing the job.
 The Constitution, the Labor Code and RA 7277 (Magna Carta for disabled persons) contain similar
provisions to BFFQ
 Meiorin Test: determines w/n an employment policy is justified
o Standard is adopted for purposes naturally connected to job performance
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Consti 2
LA Manlangit (B2023) Professor Dante Gatmaytan
o Standard is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of the work-related purpose
 To justify a BFFQ:
o The employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job
o There is factual basis that unqualified persons can’t properly perform the job
 In short, the test of reasonableness of the company policy is used because it is parallel to BFQQ.
 The weight standards of PAL show its effort to comply with its lawful obligations as a common carrier.
 The primary objective of the weight standards in flight safety.
o It is the core of the job of cabin attendants
o Aircrafts have limited space and narrow aisles and doors; being overweight impedes mobility
in such situations.
 Yrasuegui is also in estoppel. Said weight standards were made known to him before employment, and
neither did he question PAL’s authority when he was asked to trim his weight. Good faith demands
that what is agreed upon shall be done.

(3) W/N the CA gravely 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.
HELD: NO. Yrasuegui failed to substantiate his claim that he was discriminated against by PAL.
 CA: the elements of discrimination came into play as a secondary position for Yrasuegui to escape the
consequence of dismissal that being overweight entailed
 There is nothing in the records that could support the finding of discriminatory treatment
 Yrasuegui did not indicate the ideal weights of the supposed promoted overweight cabin crew
 Yrasuegui cannot invoke the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The BOR is not meant to be
invoked against acts of private individuals.

(4) W/N the CA gravely erred when it brushed aside petitioner’s claims for reinstatement and wages
allegedly for being moot and academic. HELD: NO. Yrasuegui’s claims for reinstatement and wages are
moot.
 Labor Code Art. 223 is clear that although an award or order of reinstatement is self-executory and
doesn’t require a writ of execution, the option to exercise actual reinstatement belongs to the employer.

BUT, Yrasuegui is entitled to separation pay.

 Separation pay may be granted to a legally dismissed employee if:
o The dismissal was not for serious misconduct
o The dismissal does not reflect on the moral character of the employee.
 Separation pay is granted: ½ month’s pay for every year of service

RULING
CA ruling AFFIRMED, but modified in that Yrasuegui is entitled to separation pay.

SEPARATE OPINION/S

NOTES