3/27/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly act or intentional breach of his duties, provided however, that the employer can prove that such injury, incapacity, disability or death is directly attributable to the seafarer.[23] Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. [24] As a claimant for death benefits, Apolinario has the burden of proving that the seafarer’s death (1) is work-related; and (2) happened during the term of the employment contract.[25] Unarguably, Apolinario has discharged this burden of proof. In the usual course, such proof would have rendered the petitioners automatically liable, except that the same provision of the POEA-SEC allows an exemption from liability for death benefits if the employer can successfully prove that the seafarer's death was caused by an injury directly attributable to his deliberate or willful act. That the death of the seafarer was due to his willful act is a matter of defense that the employer has to prove. In legal parlance, the employer carries the burden of proof to establish its claim that it should not be held liable. Whether it is the employer or the seafarer, the quantum of proof necessary to discharge their respective burdens is substantial evidence, i.e., such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise.[26] Since Apolinario has initially discharged his burden of proof, the petitioners, in order to avoid liability, must similarly establish their defense. If the petitioners are able to establish their defense by substantial evidence, the burden now rests on Apolinario to overcome the employer’s defense. In other words, the burden of evidence now shifts to the seafarer’s heirs. While the rules of evidence are not controlling in the proceedings of the labor tribunals, [27] a structured approach as described above is necessary if the courts were to observe the limitations to their own power of review. Otherwise, as we hinted at in our preliminary consideration, resort to the courts will amount to the review of the intrinsic merits of the NLRC’s ruling, in effect a review on appeal that statutory law does not (and, hence, the courts cannot) provide. We shall proceed to determine whether the CA correctly determined if the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion based on the above considerations. Substantive considerations a. There was substantial evidence to prove that Dennis’ death was directly attributable to his own action In the present case, the LA, NLRC and the CA[28] uniformly found that Dennis jumped elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57997 5/13