YRASUEGUI vs.

PAL
G.R. No. 168081; 17 October 2008 Employment in particular jobs may not be limited to persons of a particular sex, religion, or
national origin unless the employer can show that sex, religion, or national origin is an actual
Petition for review on certiorari qualification for performing the job. The qualification is called a bona fide occupational
J. Reyes, R.T. qualification (BFOQ).

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.”
 reflect on his moral character. We also recognize that his employment with PAL lasted for
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was discriminated against when he was dismissed by
respondent.
“Meiorin Test” in determining whether an employment policy is justified. Under this test, (1)
the employer must show that it adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to
the performance of the job; (2) the employer must establish that the standard is reasonably
necessary to the accomplishment of that work-related purpose; and (3) the employer must
establish that the standard is reasonably necessary in order to accomplish the legitimate
work-related purpose. In short, the test of reasonableness of the company policy is used
because it is parallel to BFOQ. BFOQ is valid “provided it reflects an inherent quality
reasonably necessary for satisfactory job performance.”
A legally dismissed employee is not entitled to separation pay. This may be deduced from the
language of Article 279 of the Labor Code that “[a]n employee who is unjustly dismissed from
work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges
and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time
of his actual reinstatement.” Luckily for petitioner, this is not an ironclad rule. Exceptionally,
separation pay is granted to a legally dismissed employee as an act “social justice,” or based
on “equity.” In both instances, it is required that the dismissal (1) was not for serious
misconduct; and (2) does not reflect on the moral character of the employee. Here, We grant
petitioner separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) month’s pay for every year of service.
It should include regular allowances which he might have been receiving. We are not blind to
the fact that he was not dismissed for any serious misconduct or to any act which would
more or less a decade.

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.