Abbott Laboratories, Philippines, v.

Alcaraz, BFOQ, where the particular requirements of the job

G.R. No. 192571, July 23, 2013
If the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article
296 of the Labor Code but the employer failed to
comply with the notice requirement, the sanction to be
imposed upon him should be tempered because the
dismissal process was, in effect, initiated by an act
imputable to the employee If the dismissal is based on
an authorized cause under Article 297 but the
employer failed to comply with the notice requirement,
the sanction should be stiffer because the dismissal
process was initiated by the employer’s exercise of
his management prerogative.
Yrasuegui v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. G.R.
No. 168061, Oct. 17, 2008
In fine, the Court held 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, “voluntariness
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).”
would justify the same, but not on the ground of a
general principle, such as the desirability of spreading
work in the workplace. A requirement of that nature
would be valid provided it reflects an inherent quality
reasonably necessary for satisfactory job performance.
Re: Request Of Muslim Employees In The
Different Courts In Iligan City
 A.M. No. 02-
2-10-Sc, 14 December 2005
The Court is not unmindful that the subject requests are
grounded on Section 5, Article III of the Constitution: "No
law shall be made respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The
exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
worship, without discrimination or preference, shall
forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for
the exercise of civil and political rights."
ISAE v. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 128845, June
11, 2000
The Court reiterates that the Constitution enjoins the
State to “protect the rights of workers and promote their
welfare, In Section 18, Article II of the constitution
mandates “to afford labor full protection”. The State has
the right and duty to regulate the relations between labor
and capital. These relations are not merely contractual
but are so impressed with public interest that labor
contracts, collective bargaining agreements included,
must yield to the common good.

The dismissal of petitioner can be predicated on the

bona fide occupational qualification defense.
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 origin is an actual qualification for performing
the job. The qualification is called a bona fide
occupational qualification (BFOQ). In short, the test of
reasonableness of the company policy is used because
it is parallel to BFOQ. BFOQ is valid “provided it reflects
an inherent quality reasonably necessary for satisfactory
job performance.”

PT&T Co. v. NLRC, GR No. 118978, May

23, 1997

The Court further states that it is not relevant that the

rule is not directed against all women but just against
married women. And, where the employer discriminates
against married women, but not against married men,
the variable is sex and the discrimination is
unlawful. Upon the other hand, a requirement that a
woman employee must remain unmarried could be
justified as a "bona fide occupational qualification," or