Right to equal protection of the law
G.R. No. 168081 October 17, 2008
ARMANDO G. YRASUEGUI, petitioners, vs.
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., respondents.
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.
To buttress his stance, he argues that (1) his dismissal does not fall under 282(e) of the Labor Code,
Petitioner Armando G. Yrasuegui was a former international flight steward PAL. His weight however do not correspond to his
height as required by the Cabin and Crew Administration Manual of PAL.
The weight problem of petitioner dates back to 1984. Back then, PAL advised him to go on an extended vacation leave from to
address his weight concerns. The company gave the petitioner several chances to cope with the required weight by the management.
The airline company also extended him medical help with regards to his weight problem but instead of losing, his weight doesnt
improve.
He failed to report despite the several directives given to him to report in order to check his weight status.
Petitioner was formally warned that a repeated refusal to report for weight check but petitioner ignored the directive.
PAL finally served petitioner a Notice of Administrative Charge for violation of company standards on weight requirements and
was given ten (10) days to file his answer and submit controverting evidence.
Petitioner submitted his Answer. Notably, he did not deny being overweight. What he claimed, instead, is that his violation, if
any, had already been condoned by PAL since "no action has been taken by the company" regarding his case "since 1988." He also
claimed that PAL discriminated against him because "the company has not been fair in treating the cabin crew members who are
similarly situated."
A clarificatory hearing and 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 Valentin C. Reyes ruled that petitioner was illegally dismissed. The 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. This was affirmed by NLRC
PAL elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari which reversed the decision of NLRC on the
ground that 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). Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: 1. W/N the dismissal of Ysaregui warrants the transgression of equal protection clause guaranteed by the Constitution.
2. W/N the CA gravely erred in holding that petitioners obesity can be a ground for dismissal under paragraph (e) of article
282 of the labor code of the Philippines.
HELD: 1. NO.
To make his claim more believable, petitioner invokes the equal protection clause guaranty86 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.88 Indeed, the United States Supreme Court, in interpreting the
Fourteenth 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.
2. NO.
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. Tersely put, an employee may be dismissed the moment he is unable to comply with his ideal
weight as prescribed by the weight standards. The dismissal of the employee would thus fall under Article 282(e) of the Labor Code. As
explained by the CA:
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."
