Yrasuegi v. PAL

Yrasuegi v.
PAL | 569 SCRA 467

The weight standards of an airline should be viewed as imposing strict norms of discipline upon its employeesthe primary objective of said airline
in the imposition of the weight standards for cabin crew is flight safety, for 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.
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. 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.
In 1984, the weight problem started, which prompted PAL to send him to an extended vacation until November 1985. He was allowed to return to
work once he lost all the excess weight. But the problem recurred. He again went on leave without pay from October 17, 1988 to February 1989.
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, which he failed to comply with.
On April 17, 1990, petitioner was formally warned that a repeated refusal to report for weight check would be dealt with accordingly. He was given
another set of weight check dates, which he did not report to. On November 13, 1992, PAL finally served petitioner a Notice of Administrative
Charge for violation of company standards on weight requirements. Petitioner insists that he is being discriminated as those similarly situated were
not treated the same.
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.
LABOR ARBITER: Held that the weight standards of PAL are reasonable in view of the nature of the job of petitioner. However, the weight
standards need not be complied with under pain of dismissal since his weight did not hamper the performance of his duties. NLRC affirmed.
CA: The weight standards of PAL are reasonable. Thus, petitioner was legally dismissed because he repeatedly failed to meet the prescribed weight
standards. It is obvious that the issue of discrimination was only invoked by petitioner for purposes of escaping the result of his dismissal for being
overweight.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioner was discriminated against when he was terminated in his employment by reason of non-compliance to weight
standards.
RULING: NO. Petition denied. To make his claim more believable, petitioner invokes the equal protection clause guaranty of the Constitution.
However, in the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked. Put differently, the Bill of
Rights is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals. Indeed, the US Supreme Court, in interpreting the 14th Amendment, which is
the source of our equal protection guarantee, is consistent in saying that the equal protection erects no shield against private conduct, however
discriminatory or wrongful. Private actions, no matter how egregious, cannot violate the equal protection guarantee.
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
employees 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.

Yrasuegi v. PAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yrasuegi v. PAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yrasuegi v. PAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yrasuegi v.

PAL | 569 SCRA 467

You might also like