Case Digest: Yrasuegui vs Pal

YRASUEGUI vs. PAL G.R. No. 168081; 17 October 2008 Petition for review on certiorari J. Reyes, R.T. FACTS: 

Petitioner Armando Yrasuegui was a flight steward of respondent Philippine Airlines who was terminated due to his failure to adhere to the latter’s mandated weight. o According to respondent’s Cabin and Crew Administration Manual, petitioner’s ideal weight is 166lbs. However, he was unable to maintain the required weight. o 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. o 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.



LA – 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: Whether or not petitioner was discriminated against when he was dismissed by respondent. HELD: No.

RATIO:  The SC held that petitioner failed to prove his allegations with particularity –i.e., he merely mentioned the names of other cabin crew members that were overweight. Furthermore, petitioner cannot invoke the equal protection clause guaranty of the Constitution, since such liberty is only addressed to the State or those acting under its authority. The Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals. 

In addition, the SC also held that the company standards/BFOQ of the respondent is valid. Such qualifications are reasonably related or essential to the operation of the job involved. As a common carrier, respondent is bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of its passengers. Hence, the dismissal of petitioner is valid. His failure to comply with the weight requirement is a ground for dismissal, as provided in Art. 282(e) of the Labor Code.