4/1/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
members of the crew to rebel against the ship officers, but also for other causes such
as inefficiency and insubordination or disobedience to the lawful orders of a superior
officer, all prejudicial to the interests of the employer.
The agency insists that Flores' contumacious acts, while on board the vessel,
constituted a serious and grave offense which posed a threat to the safety of the crew
and the vessel. It adds that they also reflected Flores' arrogance and disobedience to
lawful orders/directives of his superiors, punishable by dismissal pursuant to Section 31
of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract.
The agency posits that the CA erred in brushing aside the findings of the labor arbiter.
It calls attention to the labor arbiter's observation that Flores failed to refute the
agency's allegation that he incited the crew to rebel against the authority of the Master
and the senior officers of the vessel. Flores did not also refute the charge that to
pressure the principal, he induced some members of the crew to take their emergency
leaves one by one and to threaten the principal to an early sign-off.
The Case for Flores
In his comment [14] and memorandum, [15] Flores asks that the petition be dismissed
for raising purely questions of fact and not of law. He contends that the appellate
court's findings are not to be disturbed as they are binding upon this Court and,
although there are certain exceptions to the rule, the petition does not fall within any of
the exceptions. [16]
Flores further submits that aside from raising only questions of fact, the agency failed
to state any special and important reasons to justify the exercise by the Court of its
discretionary appellate jurisdiction in the case. [17]
The Court's Ruling
The procedural question
We first resolve the procedural issue of whether we should rule on the petition which,
as Flores contends, raises only questions of fact and not of law. While it is true that the
Court is not a trier of facts, we deem it proper to re-examine the evidence in view of
the variance in the factual findings of the labor arbiter, on the one hand, and of the
NLRC and the CA, on the other hand.
The substantive issue
After a careful and objective study of the parties' submissions, we find that there is
substantial evidence on record supporting Flores' dismissal. "Substantial evidence[, it
must be stressed,] is more than a mere scintilla[. It means 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." [18]
The agency, to our mind, succeeded in showing, by substantial evidence, that its
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52684
4/10