5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly received the notice. As for the procedural requirements of termination, the notations in the notices that Loyola refused to sign or receive were not sufficient proof that the petitioners attempted to serve the notices to him. There was no detail as to what transpired during the alleged disciplinary investigation. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC on November 20, 2017. [8] Court of Appeals Ruling Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA claiming that the NLRC disregarded the evidence available on record which proved that Loyola violated his contract which warranted his dismissal. They also averred that they complied with the twin notice requirements.[9] On August 31, 2018, the CA rendered its Decision, thus: WHEREFORE the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE and it is consequently DISMISSED. We, however, modify the amount of salary, which should include only, the basic monthly wages of Loyola multiplied by the remaining portion of the contract, to be computed as follows: US$ 577.00 x six months = US$ 3,462 (or its Philippine Peso equivalent at the time of payment). Given that the petitioners already paid in full the judgment award in compliance with the writ of execution dated 18 May 2018, the private respondent John P. Loyola is directed to return to the petitioners the excess payment made in view of the modification of the computation of the monetary award. IT IS SO ORDERED. [10] The CA held that Loyola substantially complied with the verification and certification requirements while petitioners failed to support their claims with substantial evidence. The CA held that petitioners failed to prove why Loyola did not pass the training or probation period which would warrant the termination of his contract. The alleged Notification of Disciplinary Hearing cited "poor ability to steering" or breach of paragraph C2-02 of the Code of Conduct. But the notice of termination stated that Loyola's disembarkation was due to his not passing the training or probation period. This, notwithstanding the fact that the contract that Loyola and Capt. Arcilla signed did not indicate that Loyola was to serve a probationary period. The CA held that nothing in the submitted evidence showed Loyola's unsatisfactory work performance. Not a single affidavit from any of Loyola's co-workers on-board was adduced by petitioners to corroborate their claim of valid and lawful dismissal. Petitioners also did not offer in evidence entries in the ship's official logbook that would have shown the performance assessment or rating of Loyola while on-board.[11] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66403 3/9