G.R. No. 168081, October 17, 2008
Topic: Management Prerogatives; Imposition of weight
requirement.
FACTS:
THIS case portrays the peculiar story of an international
flight steward who was dismissed because of his failure to adhere to the weight
standards of the airline company.
Petitioner,
Armando Yrasuegui had problems with his weight.
According to the PAL flight manual, for a man his size, he needed to
maintain an ideal weight of 166 pounds.
PAL sent him on an extended vacation so that he could deal with his
weight problems but while he was removed from flight duty and the company
physician visited him at his residence, he weighed in at 217 pounds, thus he
agreed to regular weight checks. When he
failed to comply with regular weight checks the company charged him
administratively. And ultimately, 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.
Petitioner
filed this case for illegal dismissal claiming that: (1) his dismissal does not fall under 282(e) of the Labor
Code; (2) continuing adherence to
the weight standards of the company is not a bona fide occupational qualification;
and (3) he was discriminated against because
other overweight employees were promoted instead of being disciplined.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of
petitioner, holding that while the weight requirement was lawful, the dismissal
was illegal. NLRC affirmed the Labor
Arbiter’s decision. It held that obesity
is a “disease” and thus, petitioner was not intentionally violating the
company’s order to lose weight.
The CA ruled in favor of PAL and
dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal.
It held that the weight standards of PAL are meant to be a continuing qualification for an employee’s
position. The failure to adhere to the weight standards is an analogous cause for the dismissal of an employee under
Article 282(e) of the Labor Code in relation to Article 282(a). The relevant question to ask therefor
is whether or not the weight standard is reasonable and whether or not the
employee qualifies or continues to qualify under this standard.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the weight standard is reasonable.
HELD:
YES, the standard is reasonable.
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. The dismissal of the employee would thus fall under Article 282(e) of
the Labor Code.
In
the case at bar, the evidence on record militates against petitioner’s 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.”
Petitioner
has only himself to blame. He could have easily availed the assistance of the
company physician.
The
SC held 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).”
The dismissal of petitioner can be predicated
on the bona fide occupational qualification defense. 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 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.”
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.
The
primary objective of PAL in the imposition of the weight standards for cabin
crew is flight safety.
Separation pay, however, should be awarded in favor of the employee as an act of social justice or based on equity. This is so because his dismissal is not for serious misconduct. Neither is it reflective of his moral character.
