Ranises vs NLRC : 111914 : September 24, 1996 : J Francisco : Third ... 3 of 6 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/111914.htm carrying out the same, therefore rendered his termination from employment illegal. As a general rule, the factual findings and conclusions drawn by the NLRC are accorded great weight and respect upon appeal and even finality, as long as it is supported by substantial [7] evidence. However, where the findings of POEA and the NLRC are diametrically opposed, it behooves this Court to scrutinize the record of the case and the evidence presented to arrive at [8] the correct conclusion. The two-fold requirements for a valid dismissal are as follows: (1) dismissal must be for a cause provided for in the Labor Code, which is substantive; and (2) the observance of notice and [9] hearing prior to the employees dismissal, which is procedural. In the instant case, there is no dispute that respondent employer failed to comply with the requirements of procedural due process in effecting petitioners dismissal. Both the POEA and the NLRC confirmed this in their respective decisions. The focal point of inquiry therefore is whether or not there was indeed just cause for petitioners dismissal. It is a basic principle that in the dismissal of employees, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for a just cause and failure to do so would necessarily [10] mean that the dismissal is not justified. In reversing the POEA and upholding petitioners dismissal, respondent NLRC held petitioner liable for breach of trust due to his acts that tended to breed discontent among the crew [11] members of the vessel by advocating and inciting a labor dispute. However, a close scrutiny of the assailed decision revealed that other than this sweeping pronouncement, the finding of breach of trust is bereft of any factual basis. Respondent NLRC failed to even specify the alleged illegal acts committed by petitioner. In fact, respondent NLRC did not even advert to any evidence to support its conclusion that petitioner was indeed guilty of the charges levelled against him. Apparently, the NLRCs conclusion was premised on the telex sent by Capt. T. Sonoda, Master of the vessel M/V Southern Laurel, recommending petitioners repatriation on account of his alleged unsatisfactory behavior and character, to wit: TO : SINKAI SHIPPING CO., LTD. FOR : ATTENTION CAPT. M. WATANABE, DIRECTOR RE : C/M JORGE M. RANISES I AM VERY MUCH REGRET TO INFORM YOU OF THE CAPTIONED CREWS BEHAVIOR AND ALSO HIS CHARACTER AS FOLLOWS: HE IS ALWAYS EXPRESSING HIS INTENTION AND DESIRE FOR EARLIER AND/OR SOONEST SIGNING OFF/REPATRIATION TO LOOK FOR HIGHER PAYING MANNING AGENCIES EVEN THOUGH SHOULDERING SUCH EXPENSES FOR HIS OWN ACCOUNTS. HIS SUCH BEHAVIOR, NOT ONLY LACKING LEADERSHIP AND SEAMANS BASIC MORALE, GIVES VERY BAD INFLUENCE TO THE OTHER FILIPINO CREW MEMBERS AND FURTHERMORE HE IS ATTEMPTING TO INCITE OTHER CREW FOR MAKING SOME TROUBLES AND/OR LABOUR DISPUTE ON BOARD THE VESSEL OVER WHICH HE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE. 1/20/2016 12:51 PM