Buy Online with Shopee

Shopee
1pc Wheat Straw Bowl Rice Bowl Kitchen Dinnerware
NoBrand
₱12 ₱52 Shop now

L A B O R L AW

Yrasuegui vs PHILIPPINE
AIRLINES, INC.
August 19, 2022

by Vala

No Comments

G.R. No. 168081              October 17, 2008

FACTS:

Armando Yrasuegui was a former international 3ight

steward of Philippine Airlines, who stands at 5’8”

with a large body frame (the ideal weight for his size

is 166 lbs).  In 1984, due to weight problems of the

petitioner, PAL advised him to go on an extended

vacation leave from December 1984 to March 1985

to address his weight concern. In many instances,

the petitioner  did not meet the weight standards

which prompted several leave without pay.

After meeting the required weight, petitioner was

allowed to return to work but petitioner’s weight

problem recurred which made his oP duty status

retained. He was directed to report every two weeks

for weight checks but he refused to do so.

PAL Rnally served petitioner a Notice of

Administrative Charge for violation of company

standards on weight requirements. Petitioner in his

answer claimed that PAL discriminated against him

because “the company has not been fair in treating

the cabin crew members who are similarly situated.”

In 1993, PAL terminated the petitioner “ePective

immediately” due to to his inability to attain his ideal

weight, considering the utmost leniency” extended

to him “which spanned a period covering a total of

almost Rve (5) years.

Petitioner Rled a complaint for illegal dismissal

against PAL

The LA ruled that Yrasuegui was illegally

dismissed. It ruled that the weight standards of

PAL are reasonable but it shouldn’t be the

reason for dismissal since his weight did not

hamper the performance of his duties.

NLRC aYrmed the ruling of LA.

 CA held that the weight standards of NLRC are

meant to be a continuing qualiRcation for an

employee’s position.

ISSUES:

(a) WON the obesity of petitioner is a ground for

dismissal under Article 282(e)  of the Labor Code.

(b) Whether the dismissal of Yrasuegui for obesity

can be predicated on the “bona Rde occupational

qualiRcation (BFOQ) defense”?

HELD:

Fight for You in Court

Abo and Penaranda Law

(a) YES. obesity is a ground for dismissal under

Article 282(e) 44 of the Labor Code. In the context of

his work as a 3ight attendant, it becomes an

analogous cause under Article 282(e) of the Labor

Code that justiRed his dismissal from the service. His

obesity is voluntary, which means that the cause is

solely attributable to the employee without any

external force in3uencing or controlling his actions.

Gross and habitual neglect , a recognized just cause,

is considered voluntary although it lacks the element

of intent found in Article 282(a),(c),(d).

(b) YES. The Constitution, Labor Code, and Magna

Carta for Disabled Persons contain provisions

similar to BFOQ. The weight standards of PAL are

reasonable. The business of PAL is air

transportation. As such, it has committed itself to

safely transport its passengers. The primary

objective of PAL in the imposition of the weight

standards for cabin crew is 3ight safety.

The task of a cabin crew or 3ight attendant is not

limited to serving meals or attending to the whims

and caprices of the passengers. The most important

activity of the cabin crew is to care for the safety of

passengers and the evacuation of the aircraft when

an emergency occurs. Passenger safety goes to the

core of the job of a cabin attendant.  The biggest

problem with an overweight cabin attendant is the

possibility of impeding passengers from evacuating

the aircraft, should the occasion call for it. The job of

a cabin attendant during emergencies is to speedily

get the passengers out of the aircraft safely. Being

overweight necessarily impedes mobility.

In the case of Star Paper Corporation v. Simbol,

Court held that in order to justify a BFOQ, the

employer must prove that (1) the employment

qualiRcation 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 qualiRcation would be unable

to properly perform the duties of the job. In short,

the test of reasonableness of the company policy is

used because it is parallel to BFOQ. BFOQ is valid

“provided it re3ects an inherent quality reasonably

necessary for satisfactory job performance.

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 qualiRcation

for performing the job. The qualiRcation is called a

bona Rde occupational qualiRcation (BFOQ).

Explore more tags!

Administrative Law (5) Agency (4) alteration (2) article 36 (4)

Article 153 of the Family Code (3) Bill of Rights (3)

Case Digest (259) Chain of Custody (2)

Civil Code (20) civil law (40)

Civil Procedure (48)
commercial law (41)
Con$icts of Law (33)
Constitutional Law (25) court of appeals (9)

Credit Transactions (7) criminal procedure (9) ec2 (2)

Eminent Domain (4) family code (17) family home (4)

Insurance (15) Intellectual Property (6) japan (4)

labor law (37) Law School (249)

marriage (12)
National Labor Relations Commission (7)

negotiable instrument (10) Oblicon (19)

Obligation and Contracts (25)

Persons and Family Relations (21)
Philippine citizenship (2) Political Law (33) Ponente (7)

programming (2) property (6) Psychological Incapacity (4)

Remedial Law (52)

Seven (7) Cardinal Rights of Workers (2) Social justice (7)

Sources of Labor Rights and Obligations (4) Succession (3)

Taxation Law (6) tokyo (3)

BOFQ CASE DIGEST LAW SCHOOL PHILIPPINE AIRLINES

RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS YRASUEGUI

Share:       

Related Posts
De la Cruz vs. Maersk Filipinas Crewing, Inc
AUGUST 19, 2022

Aris (Phil.) Inc. vs. NLRC

AUGUST 19, 2022

BPI v BPI Employees Union

AUGUST 19, 2022

« PREVIOUS POST

QUIRICO LOPEZ vs ALTURAS

GROUP OF COMPANIES and/or
MARLITO UY

NEXT POST »

Duncan Association of Detailman-

PTGWO vs. Glaxo Wellcome
Philippines, Inc.

SEARCH AND HIT ENTER... 

Advertisement

Recent Posts

Genuino v. NLRC MARCH 9, 2023

(NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION)

Luna vs. Allado FEBRUARY 18, 2023

Construction Co.,
Inc.

Gerbert Corpuz JANUARY 30, 2023

vs. Daisilyn Sto.
Tomas, G.R No.
186571, August 11,
2010

Categories

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

CIVIL LAW

CIVIL PROCEDURE

COMMERCIAL LAW

CONFLICTS OF LAW

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

ELECTION LAW

ENTERTAINMENT

EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE

FOOD

INSURANCE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

KOREAN DRAMA

LABOR LAW

LAW SCHOOL NOTES

LIFE

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE

MOVIE

NOTES

OBLIGATION AND CONTRACTS

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

POLITICAL LAW

PROPERTY

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW

REMEDIAL LAW

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

SUCCESSION

TAXATION LAW

TECH GUIDE

TIPS

TRAVELS

UNCATEGORIZED

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Email *

SUBSCRIBE!

    

Popular Posts

Genuino v. NLRC MARCH 9, 2023

(NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION)

M Boutique by
The Manila Hotel
at 50% off
DECEMBER 26, 2018

NAIA Terminal 3
Alternate Parking
DECEMBER 27, 2018

Checking Your
GrabTaxi Total
Expense

Instagram Feed