This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2010-11-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner contends that respondent's length of service in the company cannot work in his favor but, if to be considered at all, should even be taken against him relying on the case of Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) v. NLRC.[28] PAL has no application in this case as it involves a case of a supervisor occupying a position of responsibility, who used trip passes which were falsified to reflect higher priority and space classification than what she and her husband were entitled to on vacation travel in violation of the company policy which served as PAL's basis for losing its trust and confidence on the employee. We considered the infraction committed, together with her twenty years of employment in the company, as reflecting her regrettable lack of loyalty to the company, which loyalty she should have strengthened instead of betrayed. In contrast, the instant infraction committed by respondent during his eleven-year stay with petitioner did not involve the betrayal of petitioner's trust and confidence. Moreover, there was no basis for respondent's termination, on the ground that he had committed his third unauthorized absence within the three-year period as discussed earlier in the decision. | |||||