St. Lukes Medical Center EmployeesAssociationvs.

NLRC
[G.R. No. 162053. March 7, 2007]
Facts:
Maribel S. Santos was an X-Ray Technician in the Radiology department of St. Lukes.
Subsequently, Congress passed and enacted Republic Act No. 7431 known as the
Radiologic Technology Act of 1992, which required that a person must obtain the
proper certificate of registration from the Board of Radiologic Technology for the practice
or offer to practice as a radiology and/or x-ray technologist in the Philippines. In turn, the
Director of the Institute of Radiology issued a final notice to Santos requiring her to
comply by taking and passing the examination; otherwise St. Lukes may be
compelled to retire her from employment should there be no other position available
where she may be absorbed. Despite extensions of time within which she could comply,
Santos failed to comply with the requirement for her continued employment.
Issue:
Was Santos validly dismissed for failure to secure a certificate of registration from the
Board of Radiologic Technology?
Held:
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. It has long been recognized that the regulation of this
field is a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public to protect
the public from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance among
those who would practice medicine. The same rationale applies in the regulation of the
practice of radiologic and x-ray technology.
The enactment of R.A. (Nos.) 7431 and 4226 are recognized as an exercise of the
States inherent police power. It should be noted that the police power embraces the
power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, educations, good order,
safety or general welfare of the people. The state is justified in prescribing the specific
requirements for x-ray technicians and/or any other professions connected with the
health and safety of its citizens. St. Lukes being engaged in the hospital and health
care business, is a proper subject of the cited law; thus, having in mind the legal
requirements of these laws, the latter cannot close its eyes and [let] complainantappellants private interest override public interest.
DOLE Philippines Inc. vs. Pawis ng Makabayang Obrero, 2003

Facts: The petitioner and the respondent executed a CBA for the period starting
February 1996 to February 2001. Under the bonuses and allowances section of the said
CBA, a P10 meal allowance shall be given to employees who render at least 2 hrs of
overtime work and free meals shall be given after 3 hours of actual overtime work.
Pursuant to this provision, some departments of granted free mealsafter exactly 3 ours
of work. However, other departments grantedfree meals only after more than 3 hours of
overtime work.
The respondent filed a complaint against Dole, saying that free meals should be granted
after exactly 3 hrs of overtime work, not after more than 3 hrs. The parties agreed to
settle the dispute to voluntary arbitration. It was decided in favor of the respondent,
directing the petitioner to grant free meals after exactly 3 hrs of overtime work. CA
affirmed.
Issues:(1) Whether or not free meals should be granted after exactly 3 hrs of work
(2) Whether or not the petitioner has the right to determine when to grant free
meals and its conditions
Held:
(1) YES. The same meal allowance provision is found in their previous CBAs, the 19851988 CBA and the 1990-1995 CBA. However, it was amended in the 1993-1995 CBA,
by changing the phrase after 3 hrs of overtime work to after more than 3 hrs of
overtime work. In the 1996-2001 CBA, the parties had to negotiate the deletion of the
said phrase in order to revert to the old provision. Clearly, both parties had intended
that free meals should be given after exactly 3 hrs of overtime work.
The disputed provision is clear and unambiguous, hence the literal meaning shall
prevail. No amount of legal semantics can convince the Court that after more than
means the same as after.
(2) NO. The exercise of management prerogative is not unlimited. It is subject to the
limitations provided by law. In this case, there was a CBA, and compliance therewith is
mandated by the express policy of the law.

ABELLA VS NLRC

G.R. No. 71818

Date: July 20, 1987
Petitioners: Rosalina Perez Abella/Hda. Danao-Ramona
Respondents: The Honorable National Labor Relations Commission, Romeo Quitco and Ricardo Dionele, Sr.,
Ponente: Paras, J.
FACTS:
On June 27, 1960 the petioner, Rosalina Perez Abella leased a farm land known as Hacienda Danao-Ramona, for a
period of ten (10) years. She opted to extend the leased contract for another ten (10) years. During the existence of the lease, she
employed the private respondents Ricardo Dionele, Sr., and Romeo Quitco. Upon the expiration of her leasehold rights, petitioner
dismissed private respondents and turned over the hacienda to the owners thereof on October 5, 1981, who continued the
management, cultivation and operation of the farm.
On November 20, 1981, private respondents filed a complaint against the petitioner at the Ministry of Labor and
Employment, Bacolod City District Office, for overtime pay, illegal dismissal and reinstatement with backwages. After the parties had
presented their respective evidence, Labor Arbiter Manuel M. Lucas, Jr., in a Decision dated July 16, 1982, ruled that the dismissal
is warranted by the cessation of business, but granted the private respondents separation pay. Petitioner appealed, the National
Labor Relations Commission, in a Resolution affirmed the decision and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. Petitioner filed a
Motion for Reconsideration, but the same was denied. Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not private respondents are entitled to separation pay?

HELD:
The petition is devoid of merit. Article 284 of the Labor Code as amended by BP 130 is the law applicable in this case.
The purpose of Article 284 as amended is obvious-the protection of the workers whose employment is terminated because of the
closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. Without said law, employees like private respondents in the case at bar will
lose the benefits to which they are entitled for the thirty three years of service in the case of Dionele and fourteen years in the
case of Quitco. Although they were absorbed by the new management of the hacienda, in the absence of any showing that the latter
has assumed the responsibilities of the former employer, they will be considered as new employees and the years of service behind
them would amount to nothing.
It is well-settled that in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code and its implementing
regulations, the workingman's welfare should be the primordial and paramount consideration.
The instant petition is hereby dismissed and Decision of the Labor Arbiter and the resolution of the ministry of labor and employment
are hereby affirmed