YRASUEGUI vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES

 

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.