Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
There are no findings that support the grant of damages
to petitioners. The CA and RTC did not see any taint of bad
faith on the part of Metrobank. Thus, we decline to award
the same.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Petition denied.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
468
[T]he 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 employee’s
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 employer’s 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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
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. x x x
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The obesity of a cabin
crew, when placed in the context of his work as flight attendant,
becomes an analogous cause under Article 282(e) of the Labor Code
that justifies his dismissal from the service—his obesity may not be
unintended, but is nonetheless voluntary.—In fine, We hold that
the obesity of petitioner, when placed in the context of his work as
flight attendant, becomes an analogous cause under Article 282(e)
of the Labor Code that justifies his dismissal from the service. His
obesity may not be unintended, but is nonetheless voluntary. As
the CA correctly puts it, “[v]oluntariness basically means that the
just cause is solely attributable to the employee without any
external force influencing or controlling his actions. This element
runs through all just causes under Article 282, whether they be in
the nature of a wrongful action or omission. Gross and habitual
neglect, a recognized just cause, is considered voluntary although
it lacks the element of intent found in Article 282(a), (c), and (d).”
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Bona Fide Occupational
Qualification (BFOQ) Defense; Words and Phrases; 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
469
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
470
471
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
472
473
474
The Facts
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
“C. A cabin crew one (1) to four (4) pounds over his/her weight
maximum shall be given a verbal warning and a two (2)-week period in
which to meet weight standards.
1. A record of the verbal warning shall be maintained in the
cabin crew’s permanent file.
2. A cabin crew who fails to progress shall be given a written
letter and an additional two (2)-week period to meet weight
standards.
475
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
D. A cabin crew who is five (5) pounds or more over his/her weight
maximum will be given a written letter and a two-(2) week period to show
substantial weight reduction to meet standards. At the end of the initial
two (2) weeks period, a cabin crew who has shown progress will continue
on weight check until he/she reached his/her maximum allowable
standard.
1. Cabin crew who fails to show substantial weight reduction
shall be removed from schedules.
a. Refer to letter C above for discipline guideline.
2. A cabin crew who is ten (10) pounds or more over his/her
weight maximum shall be removed from schedule immediately.”
M E N
HEIGHT SMALL MEDIUM LARGE
FEET inches FRAME FRAME FRAME
w/o shoes
Five 7 128-137 134-147 142-161
8 132-141 138-152 147-166
9 136-145 142-156 151-170
476
_______________
W O M E N
HEIGHT SMALL MEDIUM LARGE
FEET inches FRAME FRAME FRAME
w/o shoes
Five 2 102-110 107-119 115-131
3 105-113 110-122 118-134
4 108-116 113-126 121-138
5 111-119 116-130 125-142
6 114-123 120-135 129-146
7 118-127 124-139 133-150
8 122-131 128-143 137-154
9 126-135 132-147 141-158
10 130-140 136-151 145-163
11 134-144 144-159 153-173
477
Dear Sir:
I would like to guaranty my commitment towards a weight loss
from 217 pounds to 200 pounds from today until 31 Dec. 1989.
From thereon, I promise to continue reducing at a reasonable
percentage until such time that my ideal weight is achieved.
Likewise, I promise to personally report to your office at the
designated time schedule you will set for my weight check.
Respectfully Yours,
F/S Armando Yrasuegui4
_______________
478
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
479
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
_______________
480
_______________
15 Id., at p. 96.
16 Id., at pp. 96-98.
17 Id., at p. 98.
18 Id.
19 Annexes “N” and “O.”
20 Annex “Q.”
21 Annex “U.”
22 Annex “R.”
23 Annex “V.”
24 Rollo, pp. 76-88; Annex “C.” NLRC NCR Case No. 019725-99, promulgated
on June 23, 2000. Penned by Commissioner Alberto R. Quimpo and concurred in
by Commissioner Vicente S.E. Veloso.
481
_______________
29 Annex “E.”
30 Annex “BB.”
31 Rollo, pp. 46-64; Annex “A.” CA-G.R. SP No. 63027, promulgated on
August 31, 2004. Penned by Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion (now a
member of this Court), with Associate Justices Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis
and Eliezer R. De los Santos, concurring.
482
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
Just like the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, the CA held
that the weight standards of PAL are reasonable.38 Thus,
petitioner was legally dismissed because he repeatedly
failed to meet the prescribed weight standards.39 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.40
_______________
32 Id., at p. 64.
33 Id., at p. 60.
34 Id., at p. 61.
35 Id.
36 Id.
37 Id.
38 Id., at p. 62.
39 Id.
40 Id.
483
Issues
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER’S OBESITY CAN BE
A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL UNDER PARAGRAPH (e) OF
ARTICLE 282 OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES;
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER’S DISMISSAL FOR
OBESITY CAN BE PREDICATED ON THE “BONA FIDE
OCCUPATIONAL QUALIFICATION (BFOQ) DEFENSE”;
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT UNDULY
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST WHEN HE WAS DISMISSED
WHILE OTHER OVERWEIGHT CABIN ATTENDANTS WERE
EITHER GIVEN FLYING DUTIES OR PROMOTED;
IV.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY
ERRED WHEN IT BRUSHED ASIDE PETITIONER’S CLAIMS
FOR REINSTATEMENT [AND] WAGES ALLEGEDLY FOR
BEING MOOT AND ACADEMIC.43 (Underscoring supplied)
_______________
41 Annex “B.”
42 Rollo, p. 70.
43 Id., at pp. 659-660.
484
Our Ruling
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
485
are due to the voluntary and/or willful act of the employee. How
Nadura’s illness could be considered as “analogous” to any of them
is beyond our understanding, there being no claim or pretense
that the same was contracted through his own voluntary act.”48
_______________
486
_______________
49 Rollo, p. 153.
50 Id.
51 Id., at p. 137.
52 10 F. 3d 17, 20 (Ist Cir. 1993).
487
_______________
488
_______________
54 Id., at p. 71.
489
_______________
490
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 32/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
491
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
_______________
492
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 35/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
whimsical standards. They are standards put in place by an air carrier for
reasons of safety in order to comply with the extraordinary diligence in
the care of passengers that the law exacts. x x x”
493
_______________
upon proof that it exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in
the selection and supervision of its employees. (Id.) The liability of a
common carrier cannot be eliminated or limited by stipulation, by the
posting of notices, by statements on the tickets or otherwise. (Id., Art.
1760) Although the passenger must observe the diligence of a good father
of a family to avoid injury to himself (Id., Art. 1761), the contributory
negligence of the passenger does not bar recovery of damages for his death
or injuries, if the proximate cause is the negligence of the common carrier.
(Id., Art. 1762) In such case, the amount of damages shall only be
equitably reduced. (Id.) It does not totally excuse the common carrier.
Lastly, a common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a
passenger on the account of the willful acts or negligence of the other
passengers or of strangers, if the employees of the common carrier
through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could
have prevented or stopped the act or omission. (Id., Art. 1763)
494
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 37/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 38/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 39/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
_______________
496
_______________
497
_______________
82 Rollo, p. 63.
83 Zarate, Jr. v. Olegario, G.R. No. 90655, October 7, 1996, 263 SCRA
1.
84 Id.
85 Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. No. 117038, September 25, 1997, 279 SCRA 445.
498
_______________
499
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 43/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
_______________
90 16B Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, § 799 citing District of Columbia v.
Carter, 409 US 418, 93 S. Ct. 602, 34 L. Ed. 2d 613 (1973), reh’g denied, 410 US
959, 93 S. Ct. 1411, 35 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1973) and on remand to, 489 F. 2d 1272
(D.C. Cir. 1974); Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 US 163, 92 S. Ct. 1965, 32 L.
Ed. 2d 627 (1972); Equality Foundation of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of
Cincinnati, 54 F. 3d 261, 67 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1290, 66 Empl. Prac.
Dec. (CCH) ¶ 43542, 1995 FED App. 147P (6th Cir. 1995), cert. granted, judgment
vacated on other grounds, 116 S. Ct. 2519, 135 L. Ed. 2d 1044, 71 Fair Empl. Prac.
Cas. (BNA) 64 (US 1996), ON REMAND TO, 128 F. 3d 289, 75 Fair Empl. Prac.
Cas. (BNA) 115, 1997 FED App. 318P (6th Cir. 1997); Gallagher v. Neil Young
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 44/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
Freedom Concert, 49 F. 3d 1442, 98 Ed. Law Rep. 639 (10th Cir. 1995); Mahoney v.
Babbitt, 105 F. 3d 1452 (DC Cir. 1997), reh’g denied, 113 F. 3d 219 (DC Cir. 1997).
91 Id., citing Medical Institute of Minnesota v. National Ass’n of Trade and
Technical Schools, 817 F. 2d 1310, 39 Ed. Law Rep. 62 (8th Cir. 1987); First Nat.
Bank of Kansas City v. Danforth, 523 S.W. 2d 808 (Mo. 1975), cert. denied, 421 US
992, 95 S. Ct. 1999, 44 L. Ed. 2d 483 (1975) and cert. denied, 421 US 1016, 95 S.
Ct. 2424, 44 L. Ed. 2d 685 (1975).
92 Rollo, p. 687.
500
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 45/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
_______________
501
_______________
502
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 47/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
_______________
101 San Miguel Corporation v. Lao, 433 Phil. 890, 898; 384 SCRA 504,
510 (2002); Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. L-80609, August 23, 1988, 164
SCRA 671, 682.
102 Aparente, Sr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 387 Phil.
96, 107; 331 SCRA 82, 93 (2000).
103 San Miguel Corporation v. Lao, supra at p. 898; p. 510; Aparente,
Sr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, id.; Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra at p.
682.
104 Aparente, Sr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra at p.
108; p. 94.
105 Planters Products, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. No. 78524, January 20, 1989, 169 SCRA 328; Insular Life Assurance
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 48/49
1/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 569
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168971d4b719313fc1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 49/49