Yrasegui vs.

PAL considering the utmost leniency extended to him which spanned a

period covering a total of almost five (5) years, his services were
GR No. 168081 considered terminated effective immediately. His motion for
reconsideration having been denied, petitioner filed a complaint for
October 17, 2008 illegal dismissal against PAL.
Reyes, R.T.J LABOR ARBITER:
FACTS: On November 18, 1998, Labor Arbiter Valentin C. Reyes
ruled that petitioner was illegally dismissed and ordering the
Petitioner Armando G. Yrasuegui was a former international
respondent to reinstate him to his former position . The Labor Arbiter
flight steward of Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL). The proper weight for
held that the weight standards of PAL are reasonable in view of the
a man of his height and body structure is from 147 to 166 pounds, the
nature of the job of petitioner. However, the weight standards need
ideal weight being 166 pounds, as mandated by the Cabin and Crew
not be complied with under pain of dismissal since his weight did not
Administration Manual of PAL. Apparently, petitioner failed to meet
hamper the performance of his duties. Assuming that it did,
the companys weight standards, prompting another leave without
petitioner could be transferred to other positions where his weight
pay from March 5, 1985 to November 1985. On April 26, 1989,
would not be a negative factor. Notably, other overweight
petitioner weighed 209 pounds, 43 pounds over his ideal weight. 
employees, i.e., Mr. Palacios, Mr. Cui, and Mr. Barrios, were
In line with company policy, he was removed from flight duty promoted instead of being disciplined
effective May 6, 1989 to July 3, 1989. He was formally requested to
NLRC:
trim down to his ideal weight and report for weight checks on several
dates. Petitioner ignored the directive and did not report for several The Decision of the Arbiter dated 18 November 1998 as modified
weight checks. On November 13, 1992, PAL finally served petitioner a by our findings herein, is hereby AFFIRMED.
Notice of Administrative Charge for violation of company standards
on weight requirements. He was given ten (10) days from receipt of The NLRC found the weight standards of PAL to be
the charge within which to file his answer and reasonable. However, it found as unnecessary the Labor Arbiter
submit controverting evidence. On December 7, 1992, petitioner holding that petitioner was not remiss in the performance of his
submitted his Answer. Notably, he did not deny being duties as flight steward despite being overweight. According to the
overweight. What he claimed, instead, is that his violation, if any, had NLRC, the Labor Arbiter should have
already been condoned by PAL since no action has been taken by the limited himself to the issue of whether the failure of petitioner to
company regarding his case since 1988. He also claimed attain his ideal weight constituted willful defiance of the weight
that PAL discriminated against him because the company has not standards of PAL.
been fair in treating the cabin crew members who are similarly COURT OF APPEALS:
situated. On June 15, 1993, petitioner was formally informed
by PAL that due to his inability to attain his ideal weight, and The CA reversed the NLRC
 Contrary to the NLRC ruling, the weight standards of PAL are WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED
meant to be a continuing qualification for an employees position. The WHEN IT BRUSHED ASIDE PETITIONERS CLAIMS FOR
failure to adhere to the weight standards is an analogous cause for REINSTATEMENT [AND] WAGES ALLEGEDLY FOR BEING
the dismissal of an employee under Article 282(e) of the Labor Code MOOT AND ACADEMIC
in relation to Article 282(a). It is not willful disobedience as the NLRC
HELD:
seemed to suggest.
It is obvious that the issue of discrimination was only invoked by I. The obesity of petitioner is a ground for dismissal under
Article 282(e) of the Labor Code.
petitioner for purposes of escaping the result of his dismissal for
being overweight.  A reading of the weight standards of PAL would lead to
no other conclusion than that they constitute a
ISSUES:
continuing qualification of an employee in order to keep
I. the job. 
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED  The standards violated in this case were not mere orders
IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS OBESITY CAN BE A GROUND of the employer; they were the prescribed weights that a
FOR DISMISSAL UNDER PARAGRAPH (e) OF ARTICLE 282 OF cabin crew must maintain in order to qualify for and
THE LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES; keep his or her position in the company. 
II.  By its nature, these qualifying standards are norms that
apply prior to and after  an employee is hired. They
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED apply prior to employment  because these are the
IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS DISMISSAL FOR OBESITY CAN standards a job applicant must initially meet in order to
BE PREDICATED ON THE BONA FIDE OCCUPATIONAL be hired. They apply after hiring  because an employee
QUALIFICATION (BFOQ) DEFENSE; must continue to meet these standards while on the job
III. in order to keep his job.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED Petitioner, though, advances a very interesting argument. He
IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT UNDULY claims that obesity is a physical abnormality and/or
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST WHEN HE WAS DISMISSED WHILE illness. Relying on Nadura  v.  Benguet  Consolidated, Inc:
OTHER OVERWEIGHT CABIN ATTENDANTS WERE EITHER  The reliance on Nadura is off-tangent. The factual milieu
GIVEN FLYING DUTIES OR PROMOTED; in Nadura  is substantially different from the case at bar. 
IV.  First,  Nadura was not decided under the Labor Code. The law
applied in that case was Republic Act (RA) No. 1787. 
 Second, the issue of flight safety is absent in Nadura, thus, the  First, the Constitution, the Labor Code, and RA No. 7277 or the
rationale there cannot apply here.  Magna Carta for Disabled Persons contain provisions similar to
BFOQ.
 Third, in  Nadura, the employee who was a miner, was laid off
from work because of illness, i.e., asthma. Here, petitioner was  Second, in British Columbia  Public Service Employee Commission
dismissed for his failure to meet the weight standards of PAL. He (BSPSERC) v.  The British Columbia Government and Service
was not dismissed due to illness.  Employees Union (BCGSEU), the Supreme Court of Canada
adopted the so-called Meiorin Test in determining whether an
 Fourth, the issue in  Nadura is whether or not the dismissed employment policy is justified. Under this test, (1) the employer
employee is entitled to separation pay and damages. Here, the must show that it adopted the standard for a purpose rationally
issue centers on the propriety of the dismissal of petitioner for connected to the performance of the job; (2) the employer must
his failure to meet the weight standards of PAL.  establish that the standard is reasonably necessary to the
 Fifth, in Nadura, the employee was not accorded due process. accomplishment of that work-related purpose; and (3) the
Here, petitioner was accorded utmost leniency. He was given employer must establish that the standard is reasonably
more than four (4) years to comply with the weight standards necessary in order to accomplish the legitimate work-related
of PAL. purpose. Similarly, in Star Paper Corporation v.  Simbol, this Court
held that in order to justify a BFOQ, the employer must prove
 In the case at bar, the evidence on record militates against that (1) the employment qualification is reasonably related to
petitioners claims that obesity is a disease. That he was able to the essential operation of the job involved; and (2) that there is
reduce his weight from 1984 to 1992 clearly shows that it is factual basis for believing that all or substantially all persons
possible for him to lose weight given the proper attitude, meeting the qualification would be unable to properly perform
determination, and self-discipline. the duties of the job.
II. The dismissal of petitioner can be predicated on the bona fide   In short, the test of reasonableness of the company policy is
occupational qualification defense. used because it is parallel to BFOQ. BFOQ is
 Employment in particular jobs may not be limited to persons of a valid provided it reflects an inherent quality reasonably
particular sex, religion, or national origin unless the employer necessary for satisfactory job performance
can show that sex, religion, or national origin is an actual   A common carrier, from the nature of its business and for
qualification for performing the job. The qualification is called a reasons of public policy, is bound to observe extraordinary
bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). diligence for the safety of the passengers it transports. It is
Petitioner contends that BFOQ is a statutory defense. It does bound to carry its passengers safely as far as
not exist if there is no statute providing for it: human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost
diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the
circumstances.
 The law leaves no room for mistake or oversight on the part of a  To make his claim more believable, petitioner invokes the equal
common carrier. Thus, it is only logical to hold that the weight protection clause guaranty of the Constitution. However, in the
standards of PAL show its effort to comply with the exacting absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed
obligations imposed upon it by law by virtue of being a common by the Constitution cannot be invoked. 
carrier
 Put differently, the Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked
 The job of a cabin attendant during emergencies is to speedily against acts of private individuals. Indeed, the United
get the passengers out of the aircraft safely. Being overweight States Supreme Court, in interpreting the Fourteenth
necessarily impedes mobility. Indeed, in an emergency situation, Amendment, which is the source of our equal protection
seconds are what cabin attendants are dealing with, not guarantee, is consistent in saying that the equal
minutes. Three lost seconds can translate into three lost protection erects no shield against privateconduct, however
lives. Evacuation might slow down just because a wide-bodied discriminatory or wrongful. 
cabin attendant is blocking the narrow aisles. These possibilities
are not remote.  Private actions, no matter how egregious, cannot violate the
equal protection guarantee
III. Petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that he was
discriminated against by PAL. IV. The claims of petitioner for reinstatement and wages are moot
 The law is very clear. Although an award or order of
 Since the burden of evidence lies with the party who asserts an
affirmative allegation, petitioner has to prove his allegation with reinstatement is self-executory and does not require a writ of
execution, the option to exercise actual reinstatement or payroll
particularity. There is nothing on the records which could
support the finding of discriminatory treatment. Petitioner reinstatement belongs to the employer. It does not belong to the
employee, to the labor tribunals, or even to the courts. (Art 223
cannot establish discrimination by simply naming the supposed
cabin attendants who are allegedly similarly situated with Labor Code)
him. Substantial proof must be shown as to how and why they V. Petitioner is entitled to separation pay.
are similarly situated and the differential treatment petitioner
got from PAL despite the similarity of his situation with other  Exceptionally, separation pay is granted to a legally dismissed
employees. employee as an act social justice, or based on equity. In both
instances, it is required that the dismissal (1) was not for serious
 petitioner miserably failed to indicate their respective ideal misconduct; and (2) does not reflect on the moral character of
weights; weights over their ideal weights; the periods they were the employee.
allowed to fly despite their being overweight; the particular
flights assigned to them; the discriminating treatment they got  Here, We grant petitioner separation pay equivalent to one-half
from PAL; and other relevant data that could have adequately (1/2) months pay for every year of service.
established a case of discriminatory treatment by PAL.
 People vs. Marti
GR No. 81561
January 18, 1991
Bidin, J.
FACTS:
On August 14, 1987, between 10:00 and 11:00 a.m., the appellant
and his common-law wife, Shirley Reyes, went to the booth of the
"Manila Packing and Export Forwarders" in the Pistang Pilipino
Complex, Ermita, Manila, carrying with them four (4) gift wrapped
packages. Anita Reyes then asked the appellant if she could examine
and inspect the packages. Appellant, however, refused, assuring her
that the packages simply contained books, cigars, and gloves and
were gifts to his friend in Zurich.
The four (4) packages were then placed inside a brown corrugated THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO THE
box one by two feet in size (1' x 2'). Styro-foam was placed at the EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT ON HOW THE FOUR PARCELS
bottom and on top of the packages before the box was sealed with CAME INTO HIS POSSESSION
masking tape, thus making the box ready for shipment.
1. Appellant contends that the evidence subject of the imputed
Before delivery of appellant's box to the Bureau of Customs and/or
offense had been obtained in violation of his constitutional rights
Bureau of Posts, Mr. Job Reyes (proprietor) and husband of Anita
against unreasonable search and seizure and privacy of
(Reyes), following standard operating procedure, opened the boxes
communication (Sec. 2 and 3, Art. III, Constitution) and therefore
for final inspection. When he opened appellant's box, a peculiar odor
argues that the same should be held inadmissible in evidence (Sec. 3
emitted therefrom. His curiousity aroused, he squeezed one of the
(2), Art. III).
bundles allegedly containing gloves and felt dried leaves inside.
Opening one of the bundles, he pulled out a cellophane wrapper The case at bar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence
protruding from the opening of one of the gloves. He made an sought to be excluded was primarily discovered and obtained by a
opening on one of the cellophane wrappers and took several grams private person, acting in a private capacity and without the
of the contents thereof intervention and participation of State authorities. Under the
circumstances, can accused/appellant validly claim that his
He brought the letter and a sample of appellant's shipment to the
constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizure has
Narcotics Section of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
been violated? Stated otherwise, may an act of a private individual,
Dried marijuana leaves were found to have been contained inside the allegedly in violation of appellant's constitutional rights, be invoked
cellophane wrappers  against the State?

Thereafter, an Information was filed against appellant for violation of HELD:

RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act.
 In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties
ISSUES: guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the
State.
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE THE
ILLEGALLY SEARCHED AND SEIZED OBJECTS CONTAINED IN THE FOUR  Villanueva v. Querubin:This constitutional right (against
PARCELS. unreasonable search and seizure) refers to the immunity of one's
person, whether citizen or alien, from interference by government,
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING APPELLANT DESPITE THE included in which is his residence, his papers, and other possessions. .
UNDISPUTED FACT THAT HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION ..
WHILE UNDER CUSTODIAL PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT OBSERVED.
. . . There the state, however powerful, does not as such have the
access except under the circumstances above noted, for in the
traditional formulation, his house, however humble, is his of Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private
castle. Thus is outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by government, sphere inaccessible to any power holder
which is called upon to refrain from any invasion of his dwelling and
to respect the privacies of his life  The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and
seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the
 Walker v. State (429 S.W.2d 121), it was held that the search and government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the
seizure clauses are restraints upon the government and its law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom the
agents, not upon private individuals restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is
imposed.
In the case at bar:
 If the search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a
 First, the factual considerations of the case at bar readily warrant must generally be first secured if it is to pass the test of
foreclose the proposition that NBI agents conducted an illegal constitutionality. However, if the search is made at the behest or
search and seizure of the prohibited merchandise. Records of the initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own
case clearly indicate that it was Mr. Job Reyes, the proprietor of and private purposes, as in the case at bar, and without the
the forwarding agency, who made search/inspection of the intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable
packages. Said inspection was reasonable and a standard search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private
operating procedure on the part of Mr. Reyes as a precautionary individual, not the law enforcers, is involved. In sum, the
measure before delivery of packages to the Bureau of Customs protection against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be
or the Bureau of Posts  extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring
it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the
 Second, the mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the government
reasonable search effected by Reyes into a warrantless search
and seizure proscribed by the Constitution. Merely to observe
and look at that which is in plain sight is not a search. Having
observed that which is open, where no trespass has been
committed in aid thereof, is not search (Chadwick v. State, 429
SW2d 135). Where the contraband articles are identified without
a trespass on the part of the arresting officer, there is not the
search that is prohibited by the constitution

 The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual

and the state. Its concern is not the relation between individuals,
between a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill
 driver and private respondent's secretary, forcibly opened the
drawers and cabinet in her husband's clinic and took 157 documents
consisting of private correspondence between Dr. Martin and his
alleged paramours, greetings cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr.
Martin's passport, and photographs. The documents and papers were
seized for use in evidence in a case for legal separation and for
disqualification from the practice of medicine which petitioner had
filed against her husband

There is no question that the documents and papers in question

belong to private respondent, Dr. Alfredo Martin, and that they were
taken by his wife, the herein petitioner, without his knowledge and
consent. For that reason, the trial court declared the documents and
papers to be properties of private respondent, ordered petitioner to
return them to private respondent and enjoined her from using them
in evidence. In appealing from the decision of the Court of Appeals
affirming the trial court's decision, petitioner's only ground is that in
Alfredo Martin v. Alfonso Felix, Jr., 1 this Court ruled that the
documents and papers were admissible in evidence and, therefore,
their use by petitioner's attorney, Alfonso Felix did not constitute
malpractice or gross misconduct, For this reason it is contended that
Zulueta vs. CA the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the trial court
instead of dismissing private respondent's complaint.
GR No. 107383
ISSUE:
February 20, 1996
Whether or not the documents obtained by petitioner is admissible
Mendoza, J. as evidence

FACTS: HELD:

Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private respondent Alfredo Petitioner's contention has no merit.
Martin. On March 26, 1982, petitioner entered the clinic of her
husband, a doctor of medicine, and in the presence of her mother, a
Indeed the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in
evidence. The constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of
communication and correspondence [to be] inviolable"  is no less
applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved
by her husband's infidelity) who is the party against whom the
constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only exception to the
prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a "lawful order [from a]
court or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as
prescribed by law." Any violation of this provision renders the
evidence obtained inadmissible "for any purpose in any proceeding." 

The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of
them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in
ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A
person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his
right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is
ever available to him or to her.

The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the

spouses by making it privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify
for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse
while the marriage subsists.Neither may be examined without the
consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence
by one from the other during the marriage, save for specified
exceptions. But one thing is freedom of communication; quite
another is a compulsion for each one to share what one knows with
the other. And this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that
each owes to the other.