Yrasuegui v. PAL

Armando Yrasuegui was an international flight steward of Philippine Airlines (PAL). He stood 5'8" with a large body frame, and PAL's Cabin and Crew Administration Manual set his ideal weight at 166 pounds. His weight problem dated back to 1984. He went on leave to lose weight and returned after meeting the standard, but he regained the weight. In April 1989 he weighed 209 pounds and was removed from flight duty. He was repeatedly asked to report for weight checks and was told he could use the company physician. Instead he gained weight. He promised in writing to reduce but remained overweight, and he repeatedly failed to report for weight checks despite warnings. In 1992 he weighed 219 pounds in August and 205 pounds in November. On November 13, 1992, PAL served him a Notice of Administrative Charge. His answer did not deny that he was overweight but alleged condonation and discrimination, and a clarificatory hearing followed. On June 15, 1993, PAL terminated his services. The Labor Arbiter held the standards reasonable but found the dismissal illegal. The NLRC affirmed, reasoning that obesity is a disease. The Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed his complaint.

1. 1Whether failure to meet the weight standards is a ground for dismissal under Art. 282(e) of the Labor Code.
2. 2Whether the dismissal may be justified as a bona fide occupational qualification.
3. 3Whether Yrasuegui was discriminated against, and whether he is entitled to reinstatement, wages or separation pay.

The dismissal was valid. PAL's weight standards are a continuing qualification for the job, and failing to meet them is an analogous cause under Art. 282(e) (now Art. 297(e)) even without willfulness. Nadura v. Benguet did not apply. Obesity here was no illness: Yrasuegui had lost weight before, admitted that he could do it, and ignored the company physician and the weight checks. His obesity "may not be unintended, but is nonetheless voluntary", and unlike the plaintiff in the U.S. Cook case he was not morbidly obese. The dismissal also rests on BFOQ. Provisions similar to BFOQ exist in the Constitution, the Labor Code and R.A. No. 7277, and reasonableness is the parallel test. The Court cited Canada's Meiorin test and Star Paper's two-factor test. As a common carrier bound to extraordinary diligence, PAL may impose weight standards for flight safety, because cabin crew must evacuate passengers through narrow aisles and exits. Discrimination was not proved: he only named co-workers without showing they were similarly situated. The equal protection clause also does not reach private acts. His claims for reinstatement and wages were moot. Under Art. 223 (now Art. 229), the choice between actual and payroll reinstatement belongs to the employer, and he did not comply with PAL's return-to-work notice. By exception, separation pay was granted as social justice because the dismissal was neither for serious misconduct nor a reflection on his moral character. The Court of Appeals' decision was affirmed with modification: he receives separation pay of one-half month's pay per year of service, including regular allowances.