Note: This is Jaime’s digest because supra (added a few things lang)

St. Luke’s Medical Center Employee’s Association-AFW v. NLRC | G.R. No. 162053 | March
7, 2007 | Ponente : Azcuna, J.

Petitioner: St. Luke’s Medical Center Employee’s Association-AFW (SLMCEA-AFW) and Maribel
S. Santos
Respondent: NLRC and St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc.

SUMMARY: Petitioners seek to overturn a decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the
NLRC declaring the validity of the dismissal of Santos as a X-ray technician/radiologist of St.
Luke’s Medical Center. Congress had passed a law which required all radiologists to pass a test
and subsequently acquire a license to practice. Petitioner had failed to satisfy this requirement
and was warned numerous times of her deficiencies. Petitioners argued that there was no just
cause for termination and that there was unlawful discrimination. The court affirmed the CA’s
decision and held the following: 1) the licensing required was a valid exercise of the state’s
police power to safeguard the public and 2) that the NLRC does not have managerial authority
and that St. Luke’s validly exercised their management prerogative 2) that the petitioner had
every opportunity to apply for another position but simply did not have the qualifications.

FACTS:
 Petitioner Santos was a hired X-Ray technician in St. Luke’s Medical Center (SLMC) on
October 13, 1984. She had already graduated from The Family Clinic School of
Radiologic Technology as an Associate in Radiologic Technology.
 April 22, 1992 - Congress enacted RA No. 7431 or the Radiologic Technology Act of 1992
which requires that no person shall practice or offer to practice radiology or x-ray
technologist within the Philippines without registration from the Board of Radiologic
Technology.
 Respondent SLMC sent notice to petitioner to require her to comply with RA 7431 by Dec.
1995. She had failed to comply thereby causing respondents to provide her with final
notice to fulfill her requirements by June 1997 otherwise respondents will be
compelled to retire her from employment if there should be no other position
available. The same ultimatum was given in 1998.
 Notwithstanding the ultimatum, petitioner still failed to satisfy requirements and sent
notice of the approval of her separation pay. A subsequent notice declared that the
SLMC had exerted every effort to transfer petitioner but her qualifications were not fit
for any vacant position.
 Petitioner Union requested that due consideration be given for not passing the exams and
that they be assigned to any department for the meantime.
 In 1999, a notice for separation was filed by SLMC for Petitioner Santos for failure to
submit her appeal for her failed exam.
 Petitioner filed a complaint against SLMC for illegal dismissal and non-payment of salaries.
 The labor arbiter, acting upon the petition, ordered respondent SLMC to pay Petitioner
115,500 pesos as separation pay.
 This was affirmed by the NLRC and subsequently the CA.
ISSUES + RULING:
[ISSUE 1] WON the petitioner was illegally dismissed for her inability to secure a certificate of
registration from the Board of Radiologic Technology – NO
 The requirement of such registration is found in RA 7431
 Petitioner had failed the exam required to obtain said registration.

[ISSUE 2] WON Petitioner’s rights to security of tenure and unlawful discrimination were
violated – NO
 The right to security of tenure is not absolute and may be reasonably regulated with the
police power of the state to protect the health, morals, peace, education, order, safety
and general welfare of the people.
 Such right is also limited when it involves professions which require technical knowledge
such as medicine in order to protect the public from the harmful and life-threatening
effects of incompetence.
 Respondent SLMC is liable for sanctions for non-compliance of RA 7431 and thereby must
take the necessary steps to protect its business.
 Petitioner also had the opportunity to apply and subsequently qualify for vacant positions
in which she may be transferred. She however did not heed such notices.
 The courts cannot force SLMC to reassign or transfer the petitioner as they wait for her to
acquire registration. Managerial Authority lies with the employer and not the courts.
o Courts cannot interfere with employer’s judgement in the conduct of its
business.
 There was no unlawful discrimination since unlike the other radiologists who were
transferred, Petitioner Santos was not qualified. Such elements of employment may be
reasonably set by the employer from hiring to firing.

[ISSUE 3] WON an employer can validly dismiss an employee based on her inability to secure a
certification as required by the Board – YES [almost same as 2]
 The petitioner is merely exercising its management prerogative and these rights are
entitled respect and enforcement in the interest of fair play.
 There was no malice imputed upon an employer where the separation of an employee is
undertaken in conformance with an existing law as in this case.
 Management prerogatives include the right of the employer to determine the place or
station where an employee is best qualified to serve the interests of the company on the
basis of the qualifications, training and performance.

Disposition: Decision Affirmed