G.R. No. 198656. September 8, 2014.

FACTS:

Nancy Montinola, an employee of PAL, were subjected to custom searches in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. During the search, 10 crews, including her were found of possession of food items.

PAL conducted an investigation. PAL’s Cabin Services Sub-Department required Montinola to comment on the incident. Montinola gave a handwritten explanation, stating that she did not take anything from the aircraft and committed to give her full cooperation should there be any further inquiries on the matter.  She was furnished by a notice of administrative charge. During the Clarificatory hearings, Montinola requested for proper notice of the acts violative of PAL’s Code of Discipline. Instead of giving proper notice, PAL threatened that she would be waiving her right to a clarificatory hearing if she insisted on her request. PAL failed to specify her participation in the alleged pilferage. PAL’s Management found Montinola guilty of 11 violations of the company’s Code of Discipline and Government Regulation. She was meted with suspension for one (1) year without pay.

G.R. No. 168081              October 17, 2008

FACTS:

Armando Yrasuegui was a former international flight steward of Philippine Airlines, who stands at 5’8” with a large body frame (the ideal weight for his size is 166 lbs).  In 1984, due to weight problems of the petitioner, PAL advised him to go on an extended vacation leave from December 1984 to March 1985 to address his weight concern. In many instances, the petitioner  did not meet the weight standards which prompted several leave without pay.

After meeting the required weight, petitioner was allowed to return to work but petitioner’s weight problem recurred which made his off duty status retained. He was directed to report every two weeks for weight checks but he refused to do so.

PAL finally served petitioner a Notice of Administrative Charge for violation of company standards on weight requirements. Petitioner in his answer claimed that PAL discriminated against him because “the company has not been fair in treating the cabin crew members who are similarly situated.”