6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[38] but the same was denied by the CA in a Resolution[39] dated April 22, 2013. Hence, the instant petition which raises the following issues: The Issues A. Whether the CA erred in ruling that there was no just cause in respondent's dismissal. B. Whether respondent is entitled to attorney's fees.[40] The Court's Ruling The petition lacks merit. The Court affirms the CA Decision with modification only as to the monetary award. It is a settled rule in labor cases that the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal of an employee was for a just or authorized cause, and failure to show this would necessarily mean that the dismissal was unjustified and, therefore, illegal.[41] Furthermore, not only must the dismissal be for a cause provided by law, it should also comply with the rudimentary requirements of due process, that is, the opportunity to be heard and to defend one's self.[42] Hence, for dismissal to be valid, the employer must show through substantial evidence or such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion - that (1) the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause; and (2) the dismissed employee was afforded due process of law.[43] Petitioners failed to prove just cause. In justifying respondent's dismissal, the only evidence relied upon by petitioners is the Crew Behavior Report prepared by Captain Buton, which petitioners claim plainly demonstrated respondent's inefficiency, incompetence and gross negligence in the performance of his duties. The Crew Behavior Report states: x x x C/O Rogelio O. Panahon - You know this guy was signed on in Singapore last August 28, 2010 so he just stayed onboard for about 11 days. In eleven days I have a lot of observations and as far as my observations are concerned he could not perform his job safely besides he is too old and I observed his attitude who is very arrogant and according to my third officer and some crew who knew him he is well noted to be a man with great arrogance and he is very negligent. Why he is negligent? He is very negligent because first mooring operation onboard after he signed on one O/S crew injured. The cause of the accident was he failed to observe safety cautions during mooring and unmooring operation. According to the bosun there is no safety forward during mooring and unmooring operation in fact the bosun also hit by the rope and was knocked down. You know, at the time when the O/S injured he was the one operated the winch and he ordered the bosun and the O/S to transfer the rope from the drum to the bitts which was so very tight without slacking a little bit the rope using gear. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63428 4/11