Case #1: St. Luke’s Medical Center Employee’s Association – AFW (SLMCEA-AFW) and Maribel Santos v.

NLRC and St. Luke’s Medical Center

FACTS: (Petitioner)

Petitioner Santos was hired as X-Ray Technician in the Radiology Department of private
respondent St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc. The Congress passed and enacted the Radiology Technology
Act of 1992 which requires that no person shall practice or offer to practice radiology and/or xray
technologist in the PH without having obtained the proper certificate of registration from the Board of
Radiologic Technology. She was issued a final notice to comply with the said law otherwise St. Luke’s
may be compelled to retire her from employment should there be no other position available where she
may be absorbed.

Petitioner was later advised that the management has approved her retirement in lieu of
separation pay which she refused to accept. Petitioner filed a complaint against private respondent
SLMC for illegal dismissal and non-payment of salaries, allowances and other monetary benefits.

FACTS: (Respondent)

Private Respondent, thru a letter, said that Petitioner was given 30 days from issuance of notice
of termination to look for appropriate openings which incidentally she wittingly declined to utilize. She
did this knowing fully well that the consequences would be that her application beyond the 30 day
period or after the effective date of her termination from SLMC would be considered a re-application
with loss of seniority and shall be subjected to normal application procedure. Also, her other co-
technicians opted to transfer to the ER and the other one was terminated not just for failure to comply
with the license requirement but for cause. Respondent is confused that Petitioner opted to file a
complaint before the Labor Arbiter and not avail the position offered to her or her refusal to accept the
separation pay offered by the Management in an amount beyond the minimum required by law only to
re-apply at St. Luke’s, which option would be available to her anyway even if she chose to accept the
separation pay.

Respondent NLRC, affirmed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter requiring Private respondent to
pay petitioner the amount representing her separation pay. Dissatisfied with the Decision, Petitioner
Santos filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which affirmed the Decision of the NLRC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner Santos was illegally dismissed by private respondent SLMC on the basis of her
inability to secure a certificate of registration for the Board of Radiologic Technology.
RULING:

The Supreme Court held that what happened to the petitioner was not illegal dismissal but a valid
exercise of Police Power. It held that: While the right of workers to security of tenure is guaranteed by the
Constitution, its exercise may be reasonably regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to
safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and the general welfare of the people.
Consequently, persons who desire to engage in the learned professions requiring scientific or technical
knowledge may be required to take an examination as a prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers.
The most concrete example of this would be in the field of medicine, the practice of which in all its
branches has been closely regulated by the State. The same rationale applies in the regulation of the
practice of radiologic and xray technology. The clear and unmistakable intention of the legislature in
prescribing guidelines for persons seeking to practice in this field is embodied in Section 2 of the law: Sec.
2. Statement of Policy.—It is the policy of the State to upgrade the practice of radiologic technology in the
Philippines for the purpose of protecting the public from the hazards posed by radiation as well as to
ensure safe and proper diagnosis, treatment and research through the application of machines and/or
equipment using radiation.

In the case of the petitioner, Indeed, complainant-appellant cannot insist on her “sterling work
performance without any derogatory record” to make her qualify as an x-ray technician in the absence of
a proper certificate of Registration from the Board of Radiologic Technology which can only be obtained
by passing the required examination. The law is clear that the Certificate of Registration cannot be
substituted by any other requirement to allow a person to practice as a Radiologic Technologist and/or X-
ray Technologist (Technician).