5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly inflicted burning that Moradas allegedly committed, on the other hand. It is simply contrary to human nature and experience for Moradas to set himself ablaze because he was caught stealing the ship's supplies.[29] bl. The lack of causal connection, aggravated by flimsy reliance on the alleged prior acts of pilfering and sabotaging the ship Unsurprisingly, the ponencia had to pin down Moradas first for his alleged acts of pilfering and causing the flooding in the engine room in order to create a makeshift anchorage for a finding of self-inflicted injury. Unfortunately, even its findings on these points are riddled with inconsistencies that the supposed causal connection the ponencia relied upon similarly suffers. We must not lose sight of the fact that the core issue before the labor tribunals is whether Moradas' injury is self-inflicted. The issues as to whether Moradas stole the ship's properties and committed an act of sabotaging the ship are issues that are appropriately before the POEA Adjudication Office. The records show that sometime in February 2001 (or several weeks after Moradas, through counsel, sent a demand letter to the petitioners), the petitioners filed an administrative complaint against Moradas for dishonesty and grave misconduct. A finding by that body that indeed Moradas committed the acts imputed to him would have provided sufficient starting basis for the logic of the ponencia's view that a causal connection existed. Unfortunately, the petitioners, who have the burden of proving that the injury was self-inflicted, submitted nothing on this point. While a reference to these incidents may be justified as circumstantial evidence to prove that Moradas' injury was self-inflicted, I find it highly disturbing that the ponencia made a conclusive factual finding that "Moradas was caught pilfering the ship's supplies"[30] and effectively implied that he committed the act of sabotaging the ship, notwithstanding Moradas' categorical denial of these accusations, with an explanation of his own account of the facts - denials which the petitioners themselves never bothered to address in any of their pleadings. On the other hand, I cannot also understand why Moradas' categorical denials were disregarded but the similar negative statements of Bosun Antonio Gile and Chief Officer Antonio Bejada (that there was no fire in the incinerator) were believed to defeat Moradas' claim that the burning was caused by the explosion. If the Court would be allowed to make such a first hand preference of evidence, by what standard of "sound judicial discretion" is it based? Also, according to the ponencia, Moradas failed to rebut Bosun Gile's claim that he saw Moradas go to the paint room, soak his hands in a can full of thinner and proceed to the incinerator door where he was set ablaze. Contrary to the ponencia's holding, Moradas even made a specific denial of Bosun Gile's claim in his Position Paper before the LA.[31] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56605 22/31