This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-04-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners allege that their strained relations with private respondent resulted from the latter's absences without leave, habitual tardiness and reckless disregard of safety precautions. These are the very same allegations presented by petitioners as justifying reasons for dismissing private respondent and which the NLRC and, now, this Court, declared to be baseless. Petitioners' claim that they will "not feel at ease with private respondent" if he continues to drive for them hardly constitute strained relations. What is more plausible is that petitioners feel some antagonism against private respondent for instituting a labor case against them. As expounded by this Court in Kunting v. National Labor Relations Commission[26] " | |||||