Ponente: Azcuna, J.
FACTS:
·
Maribel S. Santos was an X-Ray Technician at
St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc. (SLMC) at the time RA No 7431 or “Radiologic
Technology Act of 1992” was enacted. The said law requires that no person shall
practice or offer to practice as a radiology or x-ray technologist in the
Philippines without having the proper certificate of registration from the
Board of Radiologic Technology.
·
Pursuant to the said statute, SLMC issued a
final notice to all practitioners of tadiologic technology, including Santos,
to comply with the requirements. Unlicensed employees shall be transferred to
an area where they can practice without a license, but only if a slot is
available.
·
Several notices were sent to Santos requiring
her to comply with the law or else be compelled to retire should there be no
other position available where she may be transferred. They advised her to
submit her PRC registration form/examination permit since only a license can
assure her of her continued employment.
·
Santos ignored these letters and refused to
accept the offer for early retirement. She was also not qualified for other
present vacant positions in the hospital. Later on, she took but failed the
board examination. As a result, SLMC issued a notice of separation to Santos.
·
Santos filed a complaint alleging illegal
dismissal, non-payment of salaries, allowances, and other monetary benefits.
She also prayed for award of moral and exemplary damages plus attorney’s fees.
·
Labor Arbiter decided in her favor and ordered
SLMC to pay her P115,500 representing her separation pay. Dissatisfied, Santos
filed for an appeal before the NLRC, which affirmed the decision of the Labor
Arbiter. It also denied the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Petitioners subsequently filed a petition for certiorary before the CA, which
affirmed the NLRC’s decision. Hence, this petition.
RULING:
Whether or
not CA committed grave abuse of discretion and erred in not resolving with
clarity the issues on the merit of petitioner’s constitutional right to
security of tenure. – NO.
·
While the right of the 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.
·
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 protecting the public from the hazard posed by radiation, as
well as to ensure safe and proper diagnosis, treatment, and research
·
The enactment of laws like this is recognized
as an exercise of the State’s inherent police power. It should be noted that
the police power embraces the power to prescribe regulations to promote the
health, morals, education, good order, safety, or general welfare of the
people. The State is therefore justified in prescribing the specific
requirements for x-ray technicians and/or any other professions connected with
the health and safety of its citizens.
·
The law is clear. A certificate of
registration is required to practice the said profession. It was also reasonable
for SLMC to terminate her as her continued employment in the hospital, absent a
license, is bound to expose SLMC to possible sanction and even revocation of
its license to operate.
·
The law also recognizes that the management
has rights which are also entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest
of fair play. SLMC did not discriminate Santos. The fact that another employee,
who also failed to pass the exam, was allowed to apply for and transfer to
another position within the hospital does not constitute unlawful
discrimination. It was not proven that the said employee was not qualified for
the position where she was transferred. Records also show that Santos did not
even seriously apply for another position in SLMC.