petitioner to pay respondent Zulueta the amount of P40,043.65 representing his salary for the remaining three (3) months of the unexpired portion of the employment contract and P21,588.88 as unpaid vacation leave pay, plus attorneys fees of ten percent (10%) of the monetary award. Petitioner appealed to public respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) but the latter dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. Petitioner comes to this Court alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of NLRC (a) in finding that respondent Zulueta was illegally dismissed because he voluntarily quit and asked for his repatriation to the Philippines; and, (b) in failing to consider that the real party liable to respondent Zulueta is not petitioner but C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc., which is the new manning agent of the principal M/V Mico. We reject the position of petitioner. Where there is no showing of a clear, valid and legal cause for the termination of employment, the law considers the case a matter of illegal dismissal.v[5] The burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause. For an employees dismissal to be valid, (a) the dismissal must be for a valid cause, and (b) the employee must be afforded due process. Article 282 of the Labor Code lists the following causes for termination of employment by the employer: (a) serious misconduct or willful disobedience of lawful orders in connection with his or her work; (b) gross and habitual neglect of duties; (c) fraud or willful breach of trust; (d) commission of a crime or an offense against the person of the employer or his immediate family members or representative; and, (e) analogous cases. In this case, petitioner clearly failed to show a valid and sufficient cause for the discharge of respondent Zulueta. While it insisted that the latter voluntarily quit his job and requested his repatriation petitioner did not deny the boxing incident in M/V Mico resulting in serious physical injuries to respondent Zulueta by ship captain Willie Kampana. Petitioner did not also refute the assertion of respondent Zulueta that he agreed to be returned to the Philippines because of the threat and intimidation by his ship captain, and that if he refused he would be thrown overboard in international waters. The intimidation on board was certainly enough to vitiate respondent Zulueta's consent to his repatriation. Hence, there can be no voluntary resignation to speak of. The allegation of repatriation "upon request" of respondent Zulueta, obviously, does not square with the recorded fact that on 10 July 1995 or two (2) days after his arrival in the Philippines, he immediately complained to petitioner that he was assaulted by his ship captain on board M/V Mico. The argument of petitioner that respondent Zulueta failed to observe the grievance procedure provided in the Revised Standard Employment Contract for Seafarers requiring the prior filing of complaint with the head of the section in the vessel deserves scant consideration. The circumstances surrounding his dismissal and his immediate forced repatriation to the Philippines presented no opportunity for respondent Zulueta to faithfully follow the procedure. After all, technical rules of procedure should not be strictly applied to labor cases where the result would be detrimental to the working man.vi[6] Moreover, petitioner did not question the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. By actively participating in the proceedings by the submission of its position