G.R. No. 168081,
October 17, 2008
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. The proper weight for a man of his height and body structure
is from 147 to 166 pounds, the ideal weight being 166 pounds, as mandated by
the Cabin and Crew Administration Manual of PAL.
In 1984,
the weight problem started, which prompted PAL to send him to an extended
vacation until November 1985. He was allowed to return to work once he lost all
the excess weight. But the problem recurred. He again went on leave without pay
from October 17, 1988 to February 1989.
Despite
the lapse of a ninety-day period given him to reach his ideal weight,
petitioner remained overweight. On January 3, 1990, he was informed of the PAL
decision for him to remain grounded until such time that he satisfactorily
complies with the weight standards. Again, he was directed to report every two
weeks for weight checks, which he failed to comply with.
In 1990,
petitioner was formally warned that a repeated refusal to report for weight
check would be dealt with accordingly. He was given another set of weight check
dates, which he did not report to. On November 13, 1992, PAL finally served
petitioner a Notice of Administrative Charge for violation of company standards
on weight requirements. Petitioner insists that he is being discriminated as
those similarly situated were not treated the same.
In 1993,
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: 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.
NLRC affirmed.
CA: the
weight standards of PAL are reasonable. Thus, petitioner was legally dismissed
because he repeatedly failed to meet the prescribed weight standards. 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.
Issue:
WON he
was validly dismissed.
Held:
YES, 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. The dismissal of the employee would thus fall under Article 282(e) of
the Labor Code.
In the
case at bar, the evidence on record militates against petitioner‟s claims that
obesity is a disease. That he was able to reduce his weight from 1984 to 1992
clearly shows that it is possible for him to lose weight given the proper
attitude, determination, and self-discipline. Indeed, during the clarificatory
hearing on December 8, 1992, petitioner himself claimed that “[t]he issue is
could I bring my weight down to ideal weight which is 172, then the answer is
yes. I can do it now.”
Petitioner
has only himself to blame. He could have easily availed the assistance of the
company physician, per the advice of PAL.
In fine, the Court
holds 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).”
No comments:
Post a Comment