Scribd
Upload
273 views2 pages

I.A.2 Yrasuegui vs. PAL G.R. No. 168081

This case involved an employee, Armando Yrasuegui, who was terminated from his job as a flight steward at Philippine Airlines for failing to maintain the company's weight requirements over four years. While the labor arbiter and NLRC ruled in Yrasuegui's favor, finding the weight standards reasonable, the Court of Appeals upheld his dismissal, finding the standards constituted a continuing job qualification and his failure to meet them justified termination under the Labor Code. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding obesity can be an analogous cause for dismissal when it interferes with one's work, as it did for Yrasuegui as a flight attendant. It found his inability to lose weight was voluntary and he could have availed company assistance

Uploaded by

Arthur Kenneth lavapiz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
273 views2 pages

I.A.2 Yrasuegui vs. PAL G.R. No. 168081

This case involved an employee, Armando Yrasuegui, who was terminated from his job as a flight steward at Philippine Airlines for failing to maintain the company's weight requirements over four years. While the labor arbiter and NLRC ruled in Yrasuegui's favor, finding the weight standards reasonable, the Court of Appeals upheld his dismissal, finding the standards constituted a continuing job qualification and his failure to meet them justified termination under the Labor Code. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding obesity can be an analogous cause for dismissal when it interferes with one's work, as it did for Yrasuegui as a flight attendant. It found his inability to lose weight was voluntary and he could have availed company assistance

Uploaded by

Arthur Kenneth lavapiz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Yrasuegui vs.

PAL

G.R. No. 168081. Oct. 17, 2008

FACTS:

Petitioner Armando Yrasuegui was a flight steward of respondent Philippine Airlines who was
terminated due tohis failure to adhere to the latter’s mandated weight.

 According to respondent’s Cabin and Crew Administration Manual, petitioner’s ideal


weight is 166lbs. However, he was unable to maintain the required weight.
 For 4 years, petitioner was removed from fight duty in order to meet the weight
standards, and was even offered the services of the company physician.
 Despite the leniency, petitioner still failed to comply with the company policy. Hence,
respondent was terminated for the violation of company standards on weight
requirements.

Labor Arbiter- ruled that petitioner was illegally dismissed. NLRC affirmed ruling. Both found the
company standards of respondent on weight requirements to be reasonable.

CA- set aside the ruling of NLRC, and held that the failure to adhere to the weight standards is an
analogous case for the dismissal of an employee under Art. 282(e) of the Labor Code in relation to Art.
282(a). The CA also held that the weight standards are a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ),
and if violated “justifies an employee’s separation from the service.”

ISSUE:

WON he was validly dismissed.

HELD:

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. 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, per the advice of PAL.

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).”

You might also like