Also read: Employer’s Guide on the Minimum Terms and Conditions of Employment
As early as 2008, the Supreme Court has decided that failure to observe the weight standards of the employer, if it is reasonably important to the employee’s position and business of the employer, is a just cause for dismissal from employment.
In the case of Armando G. Yrasuegui vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (G.R. No. 168081), October 17, 2008, a male flight attendant named Armando of Philippine Airlines (PAL) was called to address his weight concerns. Apparently, Armando weighed more than the required weight standards mandated by the Cabin and Crew Administration Manual of PAL which is 166 pounds. As such, Armando was placed into an unpaid vacation in order for him to trim down, this went on for almost five (5) years until he was dismissed for violation of Company rules and regulations. PAL reasoned out that, despite the leniency and repeated extension of his days to comply with the weight standards, he still failed to do so.
Armando felt aggrieved, although he did not deny being overweight, he claimed that he was discriminated as other employees who are similarly situated was not treated the same way as him. Thus, for further guidance of the readers, together with the discussions of the Supreme Court on Armando’s claims, we will also discuss some recent pronouncement from the Supreme Court regarding violation of rules and regulations and the penalty of dismissal, in the same vein, we will also delve with the query, was Armando’s dismissal too harsh a penalty for failure to comply with weight standards?
The Supreme Court dismissed the claim of discrimination by Armando as he failed to substantially adduce evidence to prove such claim. As to the weight standards, it was expounded that, the law leaves no room for mistake or oversight on the part of a common carrier. Thus, it is only logical to hold that the weight standards of PAL show its effort to comply with the exacting obligations imposed upon it by law by virtue of being a common carrier.
The Supreme Court further reminded Armando that the business of PAL is air transportation. As such, it has committed itself to safely transport its passengers. In order to achieve this, it must necessarily rely on its employees, most particularly the cabin flight deck crew who are on board the aircraft. The weight standards of PAL should be viewed as imposing strict norms of discipline upon its employees.
In other words, the primary objective of PAL in the imposition of the weight standards for cabin crew is flight safety. It cannot be gainsaid that cabin attendants must maintain agility at all times in order to inspire passenger confidence on their ability to care for the passengers when something goes wrong. It is not farfetched to say that airline companies, just like all common carriers, thrive due to public confidence on their safety records. People, especially the riding public, expect no less than that airline companies transport their passengers to their respective destinations safely and soundly. A lesser performance is unacceptable.
The task of a cabin crew or flight attendant is not limited to serving meals or attending to the whims and caprices of the passengers. The most important activity of the cabin crew is to care for the safety of passengers and the evacuation of the aircraft when an emergency occurs. Passenger safety goes to the core of the job of a cabin attendant. Truly, airlines need cabin attendants who have the necessary strength to open emergency doors, the agility to attend to passengers in cramped working conditions, and the stamina to withstand grueling flight schedules.
Given all these explanations of importance of weight conditions, still and all, was the dismissal of Armando too harsh to be considered as a penalty for his violation of Company rules and regulations? The answer is NO.
In the case of Dongon vs. Rapid Movers and Forwarders Co., Inc. 704 SCRA 56, August 28, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that, the employer’s dismissal on the ground of willful disobedience cannot be taken into consideration if the employee in question had acted in good faith and with the sole intention of facilitating acts important for the performance of his official duties. Thus, the highest court of the land explained THAT –
“Willful disobedience to the lawful orders of an employer is one of the valid grounds to terminate an employee under Article 296 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code. For willful disobedience to be a ground, it is required that: (a) the conduct of the employee must be willful or intentional; and (b) the order the employee violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties that he had been engaged to discharge. Willfulness must be attended by a wrongful and perverse mental attitude rendering the employee’s act inconsistent with proper subordination. In any case, the conduct of the employee that is a valid ground for dismissal under the Labor Code constitutes harmful behavior against the business interest or person of his employer. It is implied that in every act of willful disobedience, the erring employee obtains undue advantage detrimental to the business interest of the employer.
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.
SUBSCRIBE NOW FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES!
[email-subscribers-form id=”4″]