65. YRASUEGUI v.
PAL
G.R. No. 168081 October 17, 2008
FACTS:
Petitioner Yrasuegui was a former international flight steward of Philippine Airlines, Inc.
(PAL). He stands five feet and eight inches (58) 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 petitioners weight problem recurred. He again went on leave
without pay from October 17, 1988 to February 1989. On April 26, 1989, petitioner weighed 209
pounds, 43 pounds over his ideal weight. 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. On February 25, 1989, petitioner
underwent weight check. It was discovered that he gained, instead of losing, weight. He was
overweight at 215 pounds, which is 49 pounds beyond the limit. Consequently, his off-duty status
was retained. On October 17, 1989, PAL Line Administrator personally visited petitioner at his
residence to check on the progress of his effort to lose weight. Petitioner weighed 217 pounds,
gaining 2 pounds from his previous weight. After the visit, petitioner made a commitment to
reduce weight 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. On January 3, 1990, he was informed of the PAL decision 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 but failed to report. Despite that, he was given one
more month to comply with the weight requirement. Again, petitioner failed to report for weight
checks, although he was seen submitting his passport for processing at the PAL Staff Service
Division. On April 17, 1990, petitioner was formally warned. He was given another set of weight
check dates but again, petitioner ignored it. 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
weighed at 212 pounds. From then on, nothing was heard from petitioner until he followed up
his case requesting for leniency on the latter part of 1992. On November 13, 1992, PAL finally
served petitioner a Notice of Administrative Charge for violation of company standards on weight
requirements.
On December 8, 1992, a clarificatory hearing was held. 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.
ISSUE:
Does the obesity of petitioner a ground for dismissal under Article 282(e) of the Labor Code?
RULING:
YES. A reading of the weight standards of PAL would lead to no other conclusion than that they
constitute a continuing qualification of an employee in order to keep the job. Tersely put, an
employee may be dismissed the moment he is unable to comply with his ideal weight as
prescribed by the weight standards. The dismissal of the employee would thus fall under Article
282(e) of the Labor Code. As explained by the CA, the standards violated in this case were not
mere orders of the employer; they were the prescribed weights that a cabin crew must
maintain in order to qualify for and keep his or her position in the company. In other words, they
were standards that establish continuing qualifications for an employee`s position. In this
sense, the failure to maintain these standards does not fall under Article 282(a) whose express
terms require the element of willfulness in order to be a ground for dismissal. The failure to meet
the employers qualifying standards is in fact a ground that does not squarely fall under grounds
(a) to (d) and is therefore one that falls under Article 282(e) the other causes analogous to the
foregoing. By its nature, these qualifying standards are norms that apply prior to and after an
employee is hired. They apply prior to employment because these are the standards a job
applicant must initially meet in order to be hired. They apply after hiring because an employee
must continue to meet these standards while on the job in order to keep his job. Under this
perspective, a violation is not one of the faults for which an employee can be dismissed pursuant
to pars. (a) to (d) of Article 282; 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.
In the case at bar, the evidence on record militates against petitioners claims that obesity is a
disease. That he was able to reduce his weight from 1984 to 1992 clearly shows that it is possible
for him to lose weight given the proper attitude, determination, and self-discipline. Indeed,
during the clarificatory hearing on December 8, 1992, petitioner himself claimed that [t]he issue
is could I bring my weight down to ideal weight which is 172, then the answer is yes. I can do it
now.
True, petitioner claims that reducing weight is costing him a lot of expenses.[50] However,
petitioner has only himself to blame. He could have easily availed the assistance of the company
physician, per the advice of PAL. He chose to ignore the suggestion. In fact, he repeatedly failed
to report when required to undergo weight checks, without offering a valid explanation. Thus,
his fluctuating weight indicates absence of willpower rather than an illness.
In fine, we hold that the obesity of petitioner, when placed in the context of his work as flight
attendant, becomes an analogous cause under Article 282(e) of the Labor Code that justifies his
dismissal from the service. His obesity may not be unintended, but is nonetheless voluntary. As
the CA correctly puts it, [v]oluntariness basically means that the just cause is solely attributable
to the employee without any external force influencing or controlling his actions. This element
runs through all just causes under Article 282, whether they be in the nature of a wrongful action
or omission. Gross and habitual neglect, a recognized just cause, is considered voluntary although
it lacks the element of intent found in Article 282(a), (c), and (d).
ISSUE:
Can the dismissal of petitioner be predicated on the bona fide occupational qualification
defense?
RULING:
YES. 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. The qualification is called a bona fide occupational
qualification (BFOQ). In Star Paper Corporation v. Simbol, this Court held that in order to justify
a BFOQ, the employer must prove that (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. In short, the test of reasonableness of the company policy is used because it is
parallel to BFOQ. BFOQ is valid provided it reflects an inherent quality reasonably necessary for
satisfactory job performance. Verily, there is no merit to the argument that BFOQ cannot be
applied if it has no supporting statute. Too, the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and CA are one in holding
that the weight standards of PAL are reasonable.
A common carrier, from the nature of its business and for reasons of public policy, is bound to
observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers it transports. It is bound to carry
its passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence
of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances. The law leaves no room for
mistake or oversight on the part of a common carrier. Thus, it is only logical to hold that the
weight standards of PAL show its effort to comply with the exacting obligations imposed upon it
by law by virtue of being a common carrier. The business of PAL is air transportation. As such, it
has committed itself to safely transport its passengers. In order to achieve this, it must
necessarily rely on its employees, most particularly the cabin flight deck crew who are on board
the aircraft. The weight standards of PAL should be viewed as imposing strict norms of discipline
upon its employees.
In other words, the primary objective of PAL in the imposition of the weight standards for cabin
crew is flight safety. It cannot be gainsaid that cabin attendants must maintain agility at all times
in order to inspire passenger confidence on their ability to care for the passengers when
something goes wrong. It is not farfetched to say that airline companies, just like all common
carriers, thrive due to public confidence on their safety records. People, especially the riding
public, expect no less than that airline companies transport their passengers to their respective
destinations safely and soundly. A lesser performance is unacceptable.
The task of a cabin crew or flight 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. Truly, airlines need
cabin attendants who have the necessary strength to open emergency doors, the agility to attend
to passengers in cramped working conditions, and the stamina to withstand grueling flight
schedules. On board an aircraft, the body weight and size of a cabin attendant are important
factors to consider in case of emergency. Aircrafts have constricted cabin space, and narrow
aisles and exit doors. Thus, the arguments of respondent that whether the airlines flight
attendants are overweight or not has no direct relation to its mission of transporting passengers
to their destination; and that the weight standards has nothing to do with airworthiness of
respondents airlines, must fail.
ISSUE:
Is petitioner nonetheless entitled to separation pay?
RULING:
YES. Normally, a legally dismissed employee is not entitled to separation pay. Exceptionally,
separation pay is granted to a legally dismissed employee as an act 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. Here, We grant petitioner
separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) months pay for every year of service. It should include
regular allowances which he might have been receiving. We are not blind to the fact that he was
not dismissed for any serious misconduct or to any act which would reflect on his moral
character. We also recognize that his employment with PAL lasted for more or less a decade.
