1/23/2017 G.R. No.

162053

TodayisMonday,January23,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

FIRSTDIVISION

G.R.No.162053March7,2007

ST.LUKE'SMEDICALCENTEREMPLOYEE'SASSOCIATIONAFW(SLMCEAAFW)ANDMARIBELS.
SANTOS,Petitioners,
vs.
NATIONALLABORRELATIONSCOMMISSION(NLRC)ANDST.LUKE'SMEDICALCENTER,INC.,
Respondents.

DECISION

AZCUNA,J.:

ChallengedinthispetitionforreviewoncertiorariistheDecision1oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)datedJanuary29,
2004 in CAG.R. SP No. 75732 affirming the decision2 dated August 23, 2002 rendered by the National Labor
RelationsCommission(NLRC)inNLRCCANo.02622500.

Theantecedentfactsareasfollows:

PetitionerMaribelS.SantoswashiredasXRayTechnicianintheRadiologydepartmentofprivaterespondentSt.
Luke'sMedicalCenter,Inc.(SLMC)onOctober13,1984.SheisagraduateofAssociateinRadiologicTechnology
fromTheFamilyClinicIncorporatedSchoolofRadiologicTechnology.

OnApril22,1992,CongresspassedandenactedRepublicActNo.7431knownasthe"RadiologicTechnologyAct
of1992."Saidlawrequiresthatnopersonshallpracticeoroffertopracticeasaradiologyand/orxraytechnologist
in the Philippines without having obtained the proper certificate of registration from the Board of Radiologic
Technology.

OnSeptember12,1995,theAssistantExecutiveDirectorAncillaryServicesandHRDirectorofprivaterespondent
SLMCissuedafinalnoticetoallpractitionersofRadiologicTechnologytocomplywiththerequirementofRepublic
ActNo.7431byDecember31,1995otherwise,theunlicensedemployeewillbetransferredtoanareawhichdoes
notrequirealicensetopracticeifaslotisavailable.

On March 4, 1997, the Director of the Institute of Radiology issued a final notice to petitioner Maribel S. Santos
requiring the latter to comply with Republic Act. No. 7431 by taking and passing the forthcoming examination
scheduled in June 1997 otherwise, private respondent SLMC may be compelled to retire her from employment
shouldtherebenootherpositionavailablewhereshemaybeabsorbed.

On May 14, 1997, the Director of the Institute of Radiology, AEDDivision of Ancillary Services issued a
memorandumtopetitionerMaribelS.SantosdirectingthelattertosubmitherPRCRegistrationform/Examination
PermitperMemorandumdatedMarch4,1997.

OnMarch13,1998,theDirectoroftheInstituteofRadiologyissuedanothermemorandumtopetitionerMaribelS.
SantosadvisingherthatonlyalicensecanassureherofhercontinuedemploymentattheInstituteofRadiologyof
theprivaterespondentSLMCandthatthelatterisgivingherthelastchancetotakeandpasstheforthcomingboard
examinationscheduledinJune1998otherwise,privaterespondentSLMCshallbeconstrainedtotakeactionwhich
mayincludeherseparationfromemployment.

On November 23, 1998, the Director of the Institute of Radiology issued a notice to petitioner Maribel S. Santos
informing the latter that the management of private respondent SLMC has approved her retirement in lieu of
separationpay.

OnNovember26,1998,thePersonnelManagerofprivaterespondentSLMCissueda"NoticeofSeparationfrom
theCompany"topetitionerMaribelS.SantoseffectiveDecember30,1998inviewofthelatter'srefusaltoaccept
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_162053_2007.html 1/6
1/23/2017 G.R. No. 162053
private respondent SLMC's offer for early retirement. The notice also states that while said private respondent
exerteditseffortstotransferpetitionerMaribelS.Santostootherposition/s,herqualificationsdonotfitwithanyof
thepresentvacantpositionsinthehospital.

InaletterdatedDecember18,1998,acertainJackC.Lappay,PresidentofthePhilippineAssociationofRadiologic
Technologists,Inc.,wroteMs.JudithBetita,PersonnelManagerofprivaterespondentSLMC,requestingthelatterto
give "due consideration" to the organization's three (3) regular members of his organization (petitioner Maribel S.
Santos included) "for not passing yet the Board of Examination for Xray Technology," "by giving them an
assignmentinanydepartmentofyourhospitalawaitingtheirchancetopassthefutureBoardExam."

OnJanuary6,1999,thePersonnelManagerofprivaterespondentSLMCagainissueda"NoticeofSeparationfrom
theCompany"topetitionerMaribelS.SantoseffectiveFebruary5,1999afterthelatterfailedtopresent/submither
appealforrecheckingtotheProfessionalRegulationCommission(PRC)oftherecentboardexaminationwhichshe
tookandfailed.

On March 2, 1999, petitioner Maribel S. Santos filed a complaint against private respondent SLMC for illegal
dismissalandnonpaymentofsalaries,allowancesandothermonetarybenefits.Shelikewiseprayedfortheaward
ofmoralandexemplarydamagesplusattorney'sfees.

Inthemeantime,petitionerAllianceofFilipinoWorkers(AFW),throughitsPresidentandLegalCounsel,inaletter
dated September 22, 1999 addressed to Ms. Rita Marasigan, Human Resources Director of private respondent
SLMC,requestedthelattertoaccommodatepetitionerMaribelS.Santosandassignhertothevacantpositionof
CSSAideinthehospitalarisingfromthedeathofanemployeemorethantwo(2)monthsearlier.

InaletterdatedSeptember24,1999,Ms.RitaMarasiganrepliedthus:

Gentlemen:

Thank you for your letter of September 22, 1999 formally requesting to fill up the vacant regular
positionofaCSSAideinMs.MaribelSantos'behalf.

The position is indeed vacant. Please refer to our Recruitment Policy for particulars especially on
minimum requirements of the job and the need to meet said requirements, as well as other pre
employmentrequirements,inordertobeconsideredforthevacantposition.Asamatteroffact,Ms.
Santosiswelcometoapplyforanyvacantpositionontheconditionthatshepossessesthenecessary
qualifications.

Astotheconsensusreferredtoinyourletter,mayIcorrectyouthattheagreementis,regardlessofthe
vacant position Ms. Santos decides to apply, she must go through the usual application procedures.
Theformalletter,Iamafraid,willnotsufficeforpurposesofrecruitmentprocessing.Asyouknow,the
managers requesting to fill any vacancy has a say on the matter and correctly so. The manager's
inputsarenecessarilyfactoredintothestandardrecruitmentprocedures.Hence,theneedtoundergo
theprescribedsteps.

Indeed we have gone through the mechanics to accommodate Ms. Santos' transfer while she was
employedwithSLMCgiventheprescribedperiod.Shewasgiven30daysfromissuanceofthenotice
ofterminationtolookforappropriateopeningswhichincidentallyshewittinglydeclinedtoutilize.She
did this knowing fully well that the consequences would be that her application beyond the 30day
period or after the effective date of her termination from SLMC would be considered a reapplication
withlossofseniorityandshallbesubjectedtothepertinentapplicationprocedures.

Needlesstomention,oneofthe3XrayTechnologistsinsimilarcircumstancesasMs.Santosatthe
time successfully managed to get herself transferred to E.R. because she opted to apply for the
appropriate vacant position and qualified for it within the prescribed 30day period. The other Xray
Technologist,ontheotherhand,asyoumayrecall,waseventuallyterminatednotjustforhisfailureto
complywiththelicensurerequirementofthelawbutforcause(refusaltoserveacustomer).

WhyMs.SantosoptedtofileacomplaintbeforetheLaborCourtsandnottoavailoftheopportunity
givenher,orassumingshewasnotqualifiedforanyvacantpositionevenifshetriedtolookforone
within the prescribed period, I simply cannot understand why she also refused the separation pay
offeredbyManagementinanamountbeyondtheminimumrequiredbylawonlytoreapplyatSLMC,
whichoptionwouldbeavailabletoheranywayeven(ifshe)chosetoaccepttheseparationpay!

Well,here'shopingthatourUnioncantimelyinfluenceouremployeestochoosetheiroptionswellasit
hasinthepast.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_162053_2007.html 2/6
1/23/2017 G.R. No. 162053
(Signed)
RITAMARASIGAN

Subsequently, in a letter dated December 27, 1999, Ms. Judith Betita, Personnel Manager of private respondent
SLMCwroteMr.AngelitoCalderon,Presidentofpetitionerunionasfollows:

DearMr.Calderon:

This is with regard to the case of Ms. Maribel Santos. Please recall that last Oct. 8, 1999, Ms. Rita
Marasigan,HRDirector,discussedwithyouandMr.GregDelPradothetermsregardingtherehiring
of Ms. Maribel Santos. Ms. Marasigan offered Ms. Santos the position of Secretary at the Dietary
Department.Inthatmeeting,Ms.Santosrepliedthatshewouldthinkabouttheoffer.Todate,westill
have no definite reply from her. Again, during the conference held on Dec. 14, 1999, Atty. Martir
promisedtotalktoMs.Santos,andinformusofherreplybyDec.21,1999.Againwefailedtohearher
replythroughhim.

Please be informed that said position is in need of immediate staffing. The Dietary Department has
already been experiencing serious backlog of work due to the said vacancy. Please note that more
than2monthshaspassedsinceMs.Marasiganofferedthiscompromise.Managementcannotaffordto
waitforherdecisionwhiletheoperationofthesaiddepartmentsuffersfromvacancy.

Therefore,ManagementisgivingMs.Santosuntiltheendofthismonthtogiveherdecision.Ifwefail
tohearfromherorfromyouasherrepresentativesbythattime,wewillconsideritasawaiverandwe
willbeforcedtoofferthepositiontootherapplicantssoasnottojeopardizetheDietaryDepartment's
operation.

Foryourimmediateaction.

(Signed)
JUDITHBETITA
PersonnelManager

On September 5, 2000, the Labor Arbiter came out with a Decision ordering private respondent SLMC to pay
petitioner Maribel S. Santos the amount of One Hundred Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P115,500.00)
representingherseparationpay.Allotherclaimsofpetitionerweredismissedforlackofmerit.

Dissatisfied,petitionerMaribelS.SantosperfectedanappealwiththepublicrespondentNLRC.

OnAugust23,2002,publicrespondentNLRCpromulgateditsDecisionaffirmingtheDecisionoftheLaborArbiter.It
likewisedeniedtheMotionforReconsiderationfiledbypetitionersinitsResolutionpromulgatedonDecember27,
2002.

PetitionerthereafterfiledapetitionforcertiorariwiththeCAwhich,aspreviouslymentioned,affirmedthedecisionof
theNLRC.

Hence,thispetitionraisingthefollowingissues:

I.WhethertheCAoverlookedcertainmaterialfactsandcircumstancesonpetitioners'legalclaiminrelationto
thecomplaintforillegaldismissal.

II.WhethertheCAcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionanderredinnotresolvingwithclaritytheissueson
themeritofpetitioner'sconstitutionalrightofsecurityoftenure.3

Foritspart,privaterespondentSt.Luke'sMedicalCenter,Inc.(SLMC)arguesinitscomment4that:1)thepetition
should be dismissed for failure of petitioners to file a motion for reconsideration 2) the CA did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in upholding the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter's ruling that petitioner was legally dismissed 3)
petitioner was legally and validly terminated in accordance with Republic Act Nos. 4226 and 7431 4) private
respondent's decision to terminate petitioner Santos was made in good faith and was not the result of unfair
discrimination and 5) petitioner Santos' nontransfer to another position in the SLMC was a valid exercise of
managementprerogative.

Thepetitionlacksmerit.

Generally, the Court has always accorded respect and finality to the findings of fact of the CA particularly if they
coincidewiththoseoftheLaborArbiterandtheNLRCandaresupportedbysubstantialevidence.5Truethisrule
admits of certain exceptions as, for example, when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts, or the
findingsoffactarenotsupportedbytheevidenceonrecord6oraresoglaringlyerroneousastoconstitutegrave
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_162053_2007.html 3/6
1/23/2017 G.R. No. 162053

abuseofdiscretion.7Noneoftheseexceptions,however,hasbeenconvincinglyshownbypetitionerstoapplyinthe
presentcase.Hence,theCourtseesnoreasontodisturbsuchfindingsoffactoftheCA.

Ultimately,theissueraisedbythepartiesboilsdowntowhetherpetitionerSantoswasillegallydismissedbyprivate
respondent SLMC on the basis of her inability to secure a certificate of registration from the Board of Radiologic
Technology.

TherequirementforacertificateofregistrationissetforthunderR.A.No.74318thus:

Sec. 15. Requirement for the Practice of Radiologic Technology and Xray Technology. Unless exempt from the
examinationsunderSections16and17hereof,nopersonshallpracticeoroffertopracticeasaradiologicand/orx
raytechnologistinthePhilippineswithouthavingobtainedthepropercertificateofregistrationfromtheBoard.

ItissignificanttonotethatpetitionersexpresslyconcedethatthesolecauseforpetitionerSantos'separationfrom
workisherfailuretopasstheboardlicensureexamforXraytechnicians,apreconditionforobtainingthecertificate
of registration from the Board. It is argued, though, that petitioner Santos' failure to comply with the certification
requirementdidnotconstitutejustcauseforterminationasitviolatedherconstitutionalrighttosecurityoftenure.
Thiscontentionisuntenable.

While the right of workers to security of tenure is guaranteed by the Constitution, its exercise may be reasonably
regulatedpursuanttothepolicepoweroftheStatetosafeguardhealth,morals,peace,education,order,safety,and
thegeneralwelfareofthepeople.Consequently,personswhodesiretoengageinthelearnedprofessionsrequiring
scientific or technical knowledge may be required to take an examination as a prerequisite to engaging in their
chosencareers.9Themostconcreteexampleofthiswouldbeinthefieldofmedicine,thepracticeofwhichinallits
brancheshasbeencloselyregulatedbytheState.Ithaslongbeenrecognizedthattheregulationofthisfieldisa
reasonablemethodofprotectingthehealthandsafetyofthepublictoprotectthepublicfromthepotentiallydeadly
effectsofincompetenceandignoranceamongthosewhowouldpracticemedicine.10Thesamerationaleappliesin
the regulation of the practice of radiologic and xray technology. The clear and unmistakable intention of the
legislatureinprescribingguidelinesforpersonsseekingtopracticeinthisfieldisembodiedinSection2ofthelaw:

Sec. 2. Statement of Policy. It is the policy of the State to upgrade the practice of radiologic technology in the
Philippinesforthepurposeofprotectingthepublicfromthehazardsposedbyradiationaswellastoensuresafe
and proper diagnosis, treatment and research through the application of machines and/or equipment using
radiation.11

In this regard, the Court quotes with approval the disquisition of public respondent NLRC in its decision dated
August23,2002:

TheenactmentofR.A.(Nos.)7431and4226arerecognizedasanexerciseoftheState'sinherentpolicepower.It
shouldbenotedthatthepolicepowerembracesthepowertoprescriberegulationstopromotethehealth,morals,
educations, good order, safety or general welfare of the people. The state is justified in prescribing the specific
requirementsforxraytechniciansand/oranyotherprofessionsconnectedwiththehealthandsafetyofitscitizens.
Respondentappelleebeingengagedinthehospitalandhealthcarebusiness,isapropersubjectofthecitedlaw
thus, having in mind the legal requirements of these laws, the latter cannot close its eyes and [let] complainant
appellant'sprivateinterestoverridepublicinterest.

Indeed, complainantappellant cannot insist on her "sterling work performance without any derogatory record" to
make her qualify as an xray technician in the absence of a proper certificate of Registration from the Board of
RadiologicTechnologywhichcanonlybeobtainedbypassingtherequiredexamination.Thelawisclearthatthe
Certificate of Registration cannot be substituted by any other requirement to allow a person to practice as a
RadiologicTechnologistand/orXrayTechnologist(Technician).12

NomaliceorillwillcanbeimputeduponprivaterespondentastheseparationofpetitionerSantoswasundertaken
byitconformablytoanexistingstatute.ItisundeniablethathercontinuedemploymentwithouttherequiredBoard
certificationexposedthehospitaltopossiblesanctionsandeventoarevocationofitslicensetooperate.Certainly,
privaterespondentcouldnotbeexpectedtoretainpetitionerSantosdespitetheinimicalthreatposedbythelatterto
itsbusiness.Thisnotwithstanding,therecordsbearoutthefactthatpetitionerSantoswasgivenampleopportunity
toqualifyforthepositionandwassufficientlywarnedthatherfailuretodosowouldresultinherseparationfrom
workintheeventtherewerenoothervacantpositionstowhichshecouldbetransferred.Despitethesewarnings,
petitioner Santos was still unable to comply and pass the required exam. To reiterate, the requirement for Board
certificationwassetbystatute.Justice,fairnessanddueprocessdemandthatanemployershouldnotbepenalized
forsituationswhereithadnoparticipationorcontrol.13

Itwouldbeunreasonabletocompelprivaterespondenttowaituntilitslicenseiscancelledanditismateriallyinjured
before removing the cause of the impending evil. Neither can the courts step in to force private respondent to
reassignortransferpetitionerSantosunderthesecircumstances.PetitionerSantosisnotinthepositiontodemand
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_162053_2007.html 4/6
1/23/2017 G.R. No. 162053
thatshebegivenadifferentworkassignmentwhenwhatnecessitatedhertransferinthefirstplacewasherown
faultorfailing.Theprerogativetodeterminetheplaceorstationwhereanemployeeisbestqualifiedtoservethe
interestsofthecompanyonthebasisofthehisorherqualifications,trainingandperformancebelongssolelytothe
employer.14 The Labor Code and its implementing Rules do not vest in the Labor Arbiters nor in the different
DivisionsoftheNLRC(norinthecourts)managerialauthority.15

Whileourlawsendeavortogivelifetotheconstitutionalpolicyonsocialjusticeandtheprotectionoflabor,itdoes
notmeanthateverylabordisputewillbedecidedinfavoroftheworkers.Thelawalsorecognizesthatmanagement
hasrightswhicharealsoentitledtorespectandenforcementintheinterestoffairplay.16Laborlaws,tobesure,do
notauthorizeinterferencewiththeemployer'sjudgmentintheconductofthelatter'sbusiness.Privaterespondentis
freetodetermine,usingitsowndiscretionandbusinessjudgment,allelementsofemployment,"fromhiringtofiring"
except in cases of unlawful discrimination or those which may be provided by law. None of these exceptions is
presentintheinstantcase.

Thefactthatanotheremployee,wholikewisefailedtopasstherequiredexam,wasallowedbyprivaterespondent
toapplyforandtransfertoanotherpositionwiththehospitaldoesnotconstituteunlawfuldiscrimination.Thiswasa
validexerciseofmanagementprerogative,petitionersnothavingallegednorproventhatthereassignedemployee
didnotqualifyforthepositionwhereshewastransferred.Inthepast,theCourthasruledthatanobjectionfounded
onthegroundthatonehasbettercredentialsovertheappointeeisfrowneduponsolongasthelatterpossesses
theminimumqualificationsfortheposition.17Furthermore,therecordsshowthatMs.Santosdidnotevenseriously
applyforanotherpositioninthecompany.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIEDforlackofmerit.Costsagainstpetitioners.

SOORDERED.

ADOLFOS.AZCUNA
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

REYNATOS.PUNO
Chairperson
ChiefJustice

ANGELINASANDOVALGUTIERREZ RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice AsscociateJustice

CANCIOC.GARCIA
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
DecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt's
Division.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1Rollo,pp.3750.

2Id.at2636.

3Id.at5.

4Id.at59167.

5Lopezv.NationalSteelCorporation,G.R.No.149674,February16,2004,423SCRA109.

6JATGeneralServicesv.NLRC,G.R.No.148340,January26,2004,421SCRA78.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_162053_2007.html 5/6
1/23/2017 G.R. No. 162053
7Suanv.NLRC,G.R.No.141441,June19,2001,358SCRA819.

8Otherwiseknownasthe"fadiologicTechnologyActof1992."

9PRCv.DeGuzman,G.R.No.144681,June21,2004,432SCRA505.

10DECSv.SanDiego,G.R.No.89572,December21,1989,180SCRA533.

11Supranote8.

12Rollo,pp.3233.

13SuperstarSecurityAgency,Inc.v.NLRC,G.R.No.81493April3,1990,184SCRA74M.FViolagoOiler
TankTrucksv.NLRC,G.R.Nos.5695051,September30,1982,117SCRA544.
14BenguetElectricCooperativev.Fianza,G.R.No.158606,March9,2004,425SCRA41.

15Almodielv.NLRC,G.R.No.100641,June14,1993,223SCRA341.

16 Duncan Association of DetailmanPTGWO v. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 162994,
September17,2004,438SCRA343.

17Supranote15.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_162053_2007.html 6/6