5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly showing that he was mentally unfit. [24] Further, he posited that the affidavits and statements submitted by the vessel’s officers and crew members have no probative value for being mere hearsay and self- serving.[25] He equally insisted on his claim for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.[26] Meanwhile, or on February 29, 2001, petitioner Captain Sigfredo E. Monterroyo filed a complaint[27] for disciplinary action against respondent before the POEA for his various infractions committed on board the vessel, namely: (a) act of dishonesty for stealing the vessel’s supplies on October 10, 2000; (b) act of sabotage committed on October 13, 2000; and (c) grave misconduct for inflicting the injury to himself.[28] The LA Ruling In a Decision[29] dated April 15, 2003, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of petitioners, dismissing respondent’s complaint for lack of merit. The LA held that respondent’s injury was self-inflicted and that no incinerator explosion occurred that would have caused the latter ’s injuries.[30] The LA gave more credence to the corroborating testimonies of the petitioners’ witnesses that respondent’s botched attempts to sabotage the vessel and steal its supplies may have motivated him to inflict injuries to himself.[31] Lastly, the LA denied respondent’s claim for moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees since he failed to prove any evident bad faith or malice on petitioners’ part.[32] The NLRC Ruling On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), in a Decision[33] dated January 30, 2004, sustained the findings of the LA and held, inter alia, that while some of the statements and affidavits of the vessel’s officers and crew members were not notarized, the corroborating testimonial evidence must be taken as a whole. In this accord, it gave due credence to the questioned evidence absent any showing that the petitioners were motivated by ill will. [34] Also, it pointed out that respondent’s mental or physical fitness was not at issue since he was motivated to inflict injury to himself for reasons related to his impending discharge and not because of his disposition.[35] Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied in a Resolution [36] dated March 31, 2004. Dissatisfied, he filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. The CA Ruling On October 31, 2006, the CA rendered the assailed Decision, [37] holding that grave abuse of discretion tainted the NLRC ruling. It found no logical and causal connection between the act of pilferage as well as the act elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56605 3/31