failed to reflect any of the infractions allegedly committed by Siojo; neither did they contain any statement regarding the investigation supposedly conducted on board the vessel. Petitioners evidence, on the other hand, consisting of the notice of investigation and notice of termination which were authenticated by the Honorary Consulate General of the Philippines in Rotterdam, Netherlands, appear to be irrelevant. The date of the authentication appeared as 3/5/94 which the labor arbiter read as March 5, 1994. He correctly disregarded such evidence since it is obvious that said notices were authenticated even before the dates of the alleged infractions, that is, from March 26 to 28, 1994. Petitioner explained that the date 3/5/94 actualy stands for May 3, 1994, as it is customary in European countries to write dates in numbers with the first digit representing the day and the second digit, the month. In any case, the Philippine Consul General in Rotterdam would not have authenticated the documents if they were indeed anomalous or irregular. On this point, it should be observed that the entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. This means that such evidence is satisfactory only if they are uncontradicted by contrary evidence. In the case at bar, the employee refuted the authenticity of the notices of investigation and termination, presenting for his part photocopies of certain pages of the vessels logbook showing that there was, in fact, no record of the violations he was accused of. Furthermore, the labor arbiters finding that 3/5/94 meant March 5, 1994, not May 3, 1994, is logical since the documents were authenticated by Philippine consular officials whose customary manner of writing dates in numbers is by making the first digit represent the month, the second digit the day, and the last digits the year. Second, petitioner could have presented other evidence to support its allegation that the documents were indeed authenticated on May 3, 1994, but it did not. It is a basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegation.iv[4] While technical rules are not strictly followed in the NLRC, this does not mean that the rules on proving allegations are entirely dispensed with. Bare allegations are not enough; these must be supported by substantial evidence at the very least. Petitioner further asserts that even assuming that Siojo was not afforded the opportunity to explain his side, his discharge was not thereby rendered illegal since there was just cause for his removal, that is, gross insubordination. In support of this argument, petitioner relies on the ruling in Wenphil Corp. vs. NLRCv[5], as reiterated in Cathedral School of Technology vs. NLRC,vi[6] where it was held that an employee who was dismissed for just cause but was not given an notice and hearing is not entitled to reinstatement and back wages. In such case, the employer should be made to pay an indemnity for his failure to observe the requirements of due process. The rule is well established that in termination cases, the burden of proving just and valid cause for dismissing an employee rests on the employer and his failure to do so shall result in a finding that the dismissal is unjustified.vii[7] In the present case, petitioner failed to prove by substantial evidence that Siojo indeed committed acts of insubordination which would warrant his dismissal.