6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Respondent counters that petitioners illegally dismissed him on September 12, 2007 and he filed a Complaint against them on August 27, 2008 and that in the intervening dates he claimed from petitioners what was rightfully his but to no avail; and that the filing of this case against petitioners after more than one year from his repatriation did not prove that his action was weak. Respondent also argues that the allegation that he repeatedly followed up his possible re-deployment was petitioners' very own uncorroborated assertion; and that what he actually followed up with petitioners was his monetary claim for benefits unjustifiably withheld; that even assuming that he did follow up his possible re-deployment, that does not amount to a waiver of his right to contest his illegal termination. More than that, respondent avers was much less than what was due and allowance due him amounting of only P32,693.63 was way below that the sum he received pursuant to the quitclaim him; that he still had at least eight months of salary to more than US$5,200.00; and that the settlement the amount he deserved to receive from them. Respondent takes issue with petitioners' claim that there was substantial evidence to support petitioners' allegation of his incompetence and poor performance; that the above-cited Report was not credible evidence because the same was not authenticated; and that for the same reason, the unsigned e-mails relied upon by petitioners were not credible as these were also unauthenticated. Our Ruling It is axiomatic that this Court is not a trier of facts; it reviews only questions of law. As such, in petitions for review on certiorari, only questions of law may be raised. This rule, nevertheless, admits of exceptions, as in this case where the factual findings of the LA and the CA, on one hand, and the NLRC, on the other, are at odds. There being contradictory findings of facts, the Court deigns it right to evaluate the pieces of evidence adduced by the parties and draw conclusions from them.[27] It is settled that the employer has the burden to prove that the dismissal of an employee is based on a valid cause. To discharge this burden, the employer must present substantial evidence - or such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion - that the cause of the employee's dismissal was valid.[28] Specifically, the employer must comply with the following requisites: (1) the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause, and (2) the employee to be dismissed must have been afforded due process of law.[29] In this case, petitioners failed to discharge this burden. Petitioners failed to prove just or authorized cause. First off, we hold that the due execution of the Report of incompetent action/insubordination/indiscipline was established considering that both parties adduced it to support their respective positions. On one hand, petitioners relied on this elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61248 5/10