YRASUEGUI V PAL

Facts:

1. Yrasuegui – former flight attendant in PAL

- Height of 5’8” – ideal weight is 166 pounds which is mandated by PAL in their Cabin and Crew
Administration Manual
2. 1984 – he had weight problem hence PAL advised him to go on leave from December until
March 1985
3. He again went on leave from March 1985 to November 1985 - succeeded
4. October 1988-February 1989 – he then overweighted from what is mandated so he went on a
leave ( 209 pounds so over 43 pounds over his ideal weight )
- He was formally requested to report his weigh checks and he may avail company physician if he
wish so
- Upon checking on Feb 1989 – he gained than losing weight
5. October 1989 – he was visited by the PAL Line administrator – he gained weight again
6. He sent a letter for his commitment to reduce weight
7. He was grounded and asked to comply with weigh checks report but he failed to do so but was
given another 1 month to comply for the weigh requirement
- His grounding will continue until satisfactory compliance for weight requirement
- Non compliance for weight report
- He was then warned and gave him another set of dates forweigh check and report it but the
petitioner did not comply
8. June 1990 – he was required to explain his refusal
- He weighted over 212 pounds
9. 1992 - he requested for leniency
- PAL served petitioner a notice for violation of company standards and given him 10 days from
the receipt the opportunity to answer
- Petitioner: No action has been taken by PAL since 1988 and PAL discriminated him
- Hearing
10. 1993 – PAL terminated him effective immediately
- Considering utmost leniency for a span of 5 years
- Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
11. LABOR ARBITER: The petitioner was illegally dismissed
- Ordered PAL to reinstate him and pay him backwages
- The weight requirement is reasonable in view of the nature of the petitioner but they may put
him to different position
- Writ of execution
12. NLRC: Affirmed the decision of the LA and they dismissed the appeal of respondent
- NLRC found the weight standards of PAL to be reasonable but is unnecessary
- Overweight daw ay sakit and uncontrollable
- The question is if the petitioner the failure to attain the weight is a willful defiance to the
standards of PAL
13. CA: matter elevated, reversed the NLRC and the petition was granted
 - The NLRC decision was set aside and void
- NLRC citation of wilfulness is an irrelevant consideration in arriving at conclusion
- Weight standard is a continuing qualification its failure is an analogous cause for dismissal
according to Article 282 of Labor Code
- , "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."37
- The petitioner was legally dismissed for failure to meet the weight standard of PAL
- Invoking discrimination was is only for the purpose to escape the result of his dismissal
- Weight standard is a BONA FIDE OCCUPATIONAL QUALIFICAION – justifies the separation of the
employee from the service

ISSUE:

- W/N the CA gravely erred that Obseity can be a ground for dismissal under Art 282 of the Labor
Code
- “Dismissal based on obesity is BFOQ
- Gravely erred that he was not unduly discriminated

DISCUSSION:
The obesity of petitioner is a ground for dismissal under Article 282(e) 44
of the Labor Code.

1. Their standards are continuing qualification of an employee in order to keep the job – qualifying
standard that must be followed before and after he was hired

- before hiring – to be qualifief

-after hiring to keep his job

- its failure may caused the employee to be dismissed

- the standard of weight is not an order but prescribed weights in order to qualify his position in the
company

- the dismissal falls in art 282 E

2. the employee can be dismissed simply because he no longer "qualifies" for his job irrespective of
whether or not the failure to qualify was willful or intentional. x x x45

3. Petitioner: Obseity is natural and illness hence there is illegal dismissal

- Petitioner was dismissed not on illness but on failure to meet the standards and he was given more
than 4 yrs of leniency

- Nadura’s case is not applicable

- His fluctuating weight dictates absence of willpower than consider it as an illness because from his first
overweight he succeeded in reducing weight

- it is a mutable condition – he can simply lose weight

4. Obesity in the context of his job as flight attendant becomes analogous case under Article 282 that
justifies his dismissal

The dismissal of petitioner can be predicated on the bona fide occupational qualification
defense.

1. BOFQ – exclusion laws and standards that are necessary for the operation of business
- To justify is: (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.67
2. "Meiorin Test" - determining whether an employment policy is justified.
- In connection of the performance of job
- Reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of job
- standard is reasonably necessary in order to accomplish the legitimate work-related purpose
3. BFOQ is valid provided it is reasonably necessary for satisfactory job performance
4. PAL as common carrier must observe extraordinary diligence , no room for mistakes
- It is logical to hold weight standards
- To safely transport passengers
5. Weight standards as flight safety
- Evacuation in case of emergency – they may impede or slow down
- They must have necessary strength
6. Bona fides exigit ut quod convenit fiat. Good faith demands that what is agreed upon shall be
done. Kung ang tao ay tapat kanyang tutuparin ang napagkasunduan.

Petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that he was discriminated against by PAL.

1. Failed to prove

2. He just mentioned names but there is no evidence of discrimination

3. SC annul the findings of LA and NLRC

4. To make his claim more believable, petitioner invokes the equal protection clause
guaranty86 of the Constitution. However, in the absence of governmental interference, the
liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked.

Petitioner is entitled to separation pay.

1. As an act of socialjustice or based on equity

 2. required that the dismissal (1) was not for serious misconduct; and (2) does not reflect on the
moral character of the employee.

RULING: The decision of CA isaffirmed but modified

RULING

1. Obesity is analagous case under 282 e

A. Continuing requirement

- before and after

- failure to comply is just cause for dismissal

- wether it is a will defiance or not

B. Not a sickness

- mutable condition

- 1984

- will power

2. BFOQ

- Employment in particular jobs may not be limited to persons of a particular sex, religion, or national
origin unless the employer can show that sex, religion, or national origin is an actual qualification for
performing the job.

"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;64 (2) the employer must establish that the standard is reasonably
necessary65 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.

- It is BFOQ and is valid if it reflects an inherent quality reasonably necessary for the satisfactory of job
performance

A. PAL is common carrier

- they are bound to exercise extraordinary diligence

- for safety of passengers they trasnport - they can only rely to their employees

- logical

- flight safety

B. Emergency occurs
- Passenger safety goes to the core of the job of a cabin attendant

- cabin space and narrow aisle

- impeding the evacuation

- their job is to speedily evacuate