Philippine Association of Service
Exporters, Inc. v. Drilon,* 163 SCRA
386 (1988);
FACTS:
1. PASEI, a firm engaged in the
recruitment of OFWs, challenges the
constitutionality of Dept. Order No. 1
(1988) of DOLE or the guidelines on the
temporary suspension of deployment of
Filipino domestic and household
workers.
2. It claimed that said order discriminates
against males and females, does not
apply to all Filipino workers but only to
domestic helpers and females with
similar skills, and is violative of the right
to travel.
3. It contends that it is an invalid exercise
of the lawmaking power, police power
being legislative, and not executive in
character.
4. PASEI invoked Sec. 3, Art. 13 of the
Constitution providing for worker
participation in policy and decision-
making process affecting their rights and
benefits and the order was passed
without prior consultations.
5. The SolGen invoked the police power of
the State in submitting the validity of the
guidelines and informed the Court that
the Labor Secretary already lifted the
deployment ban in certain states.
6. It is admitted that the order is in the
nature of a police power measure.
ISSUE: Whether the order is valid under
the Constitution. YES.
RATIO:
 Official acts enjoy presumed validity (no
clear and convincing evidence was
shown to the contrary).
 Police power: State authotity to enact
legislation that may interfere with
personal liberty or property in order to
promote the general welfare.
 Police power constitutes an implied
limitation on the Bill of Rights.
 Equality before the law admits
classifications provided that it rest on
substantial distinctions, germane to the
purposes of the law, not confined to
1
 existing conditions and apply equally to  The petitioner’s reliance on the
all members of the same class. Constitutional guaranty of worker
 The unhappy plight that the female participation in policy making processes
labor force experience abroad must submit to the demands and
compels urgent Government action. necessities of the State’s power of
 The same cannot be said for male regulation.
workers (save for some isolated cases)
so the classifications are borne by
evidence; discrimination is justified.
 DO No. 1 is a valid implementation of the
Labor Code to “afford protection to
labor.”
 Not an invalid exercise of legislative
power because the Labor Code itself
vests the DOLE with rule-making
powers.
 “Protection to Labor” does not signify the
promotion of employment alone. The
Constitution wants that employment be
decent, just, and humane.
 The Government is duty-bound to insure
that our toiling expatriates have
adequate protection, personally and
economically, while away from home
and as part of its duty, it has ordered an
indefinite ban on deployment.

2

St. Luke’s Medical Center Employee’s
Association-AFW v. NLRC, 517 SCRA
677 (2007);
FACTS:
1. Santos was hired as x-ray technician of
SLMC (1984).
2. 1992: Congress passed RA 7431 known
as the Radiologic Technology Act of
1992. This law required that no person
shall practice as an x-ray technologist
without having obtained the proper
certificate of registration from the Board
of Radiologic Technology.
3. The HR Director of SLMC issued a final
notice to all practitioners of Radiologic
Technology to comply with RA 7431,
otherwise, the unlicensed employee will
be transferred to an area which does not
require a license if a slot is available.
4. Santos received a notice requiring her to
take and pass the exam, otherwise, she
may be compelled to retire from
employment should there be no other
position available.
5. Another memorandum was issued to
Santos advising her that only a license
can assure her of her continued
employment and that it was her last
chance to take and pass the exam.
6. Santos was informed that the
management of SLMC has approved her
retirement in lieu of separation pay.
7. The Personnel Manager of SLMC issued
a “Notice of Separation from the
Company” to Santos due to her refusal
to accept the offer for early retirement.
Further, it said that her qualifications do
not fit any of the present vacant
positions in the hospital.
8. The President of the Philippine
Association of Radiologic Technologists
asked SLMC to give Santos due
consideration by giving her an
assignment in any department in the
hospital awaiting her chance to pass the
Board exam.
9. Another Notice of Separation was issued
to Santos after she failed to present her
appeal for rechecking to PRC of the
recent board exam which she failed.
3
10. Santos filed a complaint against SLMC  While the security of tenure is
for illegal dismissal and non-payment of guaranteed by the Constitution, its
salaries and benefits. exercise may be regulated pursuant to
11. The Alliance of Filipino Workers the police power of the State to
President requested SLMC to safeguard health, morals, peace,
accommodate Santos and assign her to education, order, safety, and the general
a vacant position. In response, SLMC welfare of the people.
said that Santos must go through the  The state is justified in prescribing the
usual application procedures. specific requirements for x-ray
12. Petitioners: Santos’ failure to comply technicians.
with the certification requirement did not  The law is clear that the Certificate of
constitute just case for termination as it Registration cannot be substituted by
violated her right to security of tenure. any other requirement to allow a person
13. Labor Arbiter: Ordered SLMC to pay to practice as a technician.
Santos her separation pay. All other  Persons who desire to engage in the
claims were dismissed. learned profession may be required to
14. NLRC and CA affirmed. take an exam as a prerequisite to
ISSUES: engage in their careers.
1. Whether Santos’ constitutional right of  No malice or ill-will can be imputed upon
security of tenure was violated. NO. SLMC because her continued
2. Whether Santos was illegally employment without a certificate
dismissed on the basis of her inability exposes the hospital to possible
to secure a certificate of registration sanctions or license revocation.
from the Board of Radiologic  Santos was given enough opportunity to
Technology. NO. qualify for the position but she still failed
to comply.
RATIO:
4
 Management has rights which are also
entitled to respect and enforcement in
the interest of fair play.
Generally, an employee
dismissed for any of the just causes
under Article 297 is not entitled to
separation pay. By way of exception,
the Court has allowed the grant of
separation pay based on equity and as
a measure of social justice, as long as
the dismissal was for causes other
than serious conduct or those
manifesting moral depravity.
FEX line to Lim was part of his strategy
to ensure her subscription.
Respondent’s zealousness was
manifested through acts that showed
an inordinate lapse of judgment
warranting his dismissal in accordance
with management prerogative, but
this Court considers in his favor the
above circumstances in granting him
separation pay in the amount of one
(1) month pay for every year of
service.

Here, while it is clear that

respondent's act constitutes a willful
breach of trust and confidence that
justified his dismissal, it also appears
that he was primarily actuated by
zealousness in acquiring and retaining
subscribers rather than any intent to
misappropriate company funds; as he
admitted in his response to the notice
to explain that offering an alternative
5