ST.

LUKE’S MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEE’S her to submit her PRC registration form/examination permit since
ASSOCIATION-AFW and MARIBEL SANTOS v NLRC only a license can assure her of her continued employment.

4. Santos disregarded these letters and refused to accept the offer

for early retirement. She was also not qualified for any other present
G.R. No: 162053 vacant positions in the hospital. Later on, she took but failed the
Petitioner/s: St. Luke’s Medical Center Employee’s Association-AFW board examination. As a result, SLMC issued a “notice of separation
and Maribel S. Santos from the company” to Santos.
Respondent/s: National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and St.
5. Santos filed for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salaries,
Luke’s Medical Center, Inc.
allowances, and other monetary benefits. She also prayed for award
Ponente: J. Azcuna
of moral and exemplary damages plus attorney’s fees.
Date of Promulgation: March 7, 2007
Action: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA 6. Labor Arbiter decided in favor of Santos and ordered SLMC to pay
her P115,500 representing her separation pay. Dissatisfied, Santos
filed for an appeal with NLRC.

7. NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. It also denied the
petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioners, then, filed a
FACTS
petition for certiorary with CA, which affirmed NLRC’s decision.
1. Maribel S. Santos was an X-Ray Technician in St. Luke’s Medical
The following are the issues raised in this petition:
Center, Inc. (SLMC) during the time RA No 7431 or “Radiologic
Technology Act of 1992” was passed and enacted. The said law ISSUE 1
requires that no person shall practice or offer to practice as a
radiology or x-ray technologist in the Philippines without having the Whether or not CA overlooked certain material facts and
proper certificate of registrtion from the Board of Radiologic circumstances on petitioners’ legal claim in relation to the complaint
Technolgy. for illegal dismissal?

2. Pursuant to the said statute, SLMC issued a final notice to all HELD - NO
practitioners of Radiologic Technology, including Santos, to comply
with the requirements. Unlicensed employees will be trasnfered in an 1. The Court always accords respect and finality to the findings of
area which does not require a license to practice if a slot is available. fact of the CA, particularly if they coincide with those of the Labor
Arbiter and the NLRC and they are supported by substantial
3. Several notices were sent to Santos requiring her to comply with evidence.
the law; otherwise she will be compelled to retire should there be no
other position available where she may be employed. They advised 2. Exceptions to this rule are the following: (1) when the judgment is
based on a misapprehension of facts, (2) findings of the facts are not
THE DIGEST GROUP | B2018 | AY 2015-2016 I | UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINE COLLEGE OF LAW 1
supported by the evidence on record, (3) are so glaringly erroneous 3. The enacment of the said laws are recognized as an exercise
as to constitute grave abuse of discretion. However, none of these of the State’s inherent police power. It should be noted that the
exceptions apply to this case. police power embraces the power to prescribe regulations to
promote the health, morals, education, good order, safety, or
ISSUE 2 general welfare of the people. The state is justified in
prescribing the specific requirements for x-ray technicians
Whether or not CA committed grave abuse of discretion and erred in
and/or any other professions connected with the health and
not resolving with clarity the issues on the merit of petitioner’s
safety of its citizens.
constitutional right to security of tenure?
4. The law is clear. A certificate of registration is required to practice
Petitioner Santos’ arguments: (1) Her failure to pass the board
the said profession. It was also reasonable for SLMC to terminate
licensure exam for X-ray technicians did not constitue just cause for
her as her continued employment in the hospital, absent a license,
termination as it violated her constiutional right to security of tenure
will expose SLMC to possible sanction and even revocation of its
Respondent SLMC’s arguments: (1) petition should be dismissed for license to operate.
failure of petitioners to file a motion for reconsideration; (2) CA did
5. The law also recognizes that the management has rights which
not commite grave abuse of discretion in upholding the NLRC and
are also entitled to respect and enforcemen in the interest of fair play.
Labor Arbiter’s ruling; (3) petitioner was legally and validly terminated
SLMC did not discriminate Santos. The fact that another employee,
in accordance with RA 4226 and 7431; (4) SLMC’s deicison to
who also failed to pass the exam, was allowed to apply for and
terminate Santos was made in good faith and was not the result of
transfer to another position with the hospital does not constitute
unfair discrimination; and (5) petitioner Santos’ non-transfer to
unlawful discrimination. It was not proven that the said employee
another position in the SLMN was a valid exercise of management
was not qualified for the position where she was trasnferred.
prerogative.
Records also show that Santos did not even seriously apply for
HELD - NO another position in SLMC.

1. While the right of the workers to security of tenure is guaranteed DISPO

by the Constitution, its exercise may be reasonably regulated
Petition is denied for lack of merit.
pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard health,
morals, peace, education, order, safety, and the general welfare of NOTES
the people.
Other facts:
2. In the statement of policy of the law, it was its intention to upgrade
the practice of radiologic technology in the country for the purpose of 1) A letter from Alliance of Filipino Workers requested SLMC to
protecting the public from the hazard posed by radiation was well as accommodate Santos and assign her to the vacant position of CSS
to ensure safe and proper diagnosis, treatment, and research. Aide in the hospital arising from the death of an employee more than
2 months earlier. However, if she must apply, she will go throught he

THE DIGEST GROUP | B2018 | AY 2015-2016 I | UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINE COLLEGE OF LAW 2
usual application procedures. Santos did not make use of the 30-day this has cause a serious backlog of work due to the vacancy. The
period for application or after her termination, which was considered hospital decided to give her until the end of the month to decide
a re-application with loss of seniority. Santos did not avail of this because there is a need for immediate occupancy.
opportunity and she also refused the separation pay offered by the
management. 3) One of the 3 X-ray technologists in similar circumstance as Santos
was able to apply and transfer to E.R because she opted to apply
2) Santos was then offered the position of Secretary at the Dietary and qualified for it within the prescribed 30-day period. The other one
Department, but after responding that she will think about the offer, was teminated for refusal to serve a customer.
she did not respond again. More than two months has passed and

THE DIGEST GROUP | B2018 | AY 2015-2016 I | UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINE COLLEGE OF LAW 3