11/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly pump, Vera ordered Constantino to stop. Vera then proceeded to show him the proper manner of dismantling the pump. However, Constantino turned ballistic, hurling invectives at Vera and threatened and attempted to harm him with a spanner. Fortunately, cooler heads intervened and prevented Constantino from physically hurting Vera. Finally, on January 17, 2008, at around 1:00 p.m. in the afternoon, Vera directed Constantino to clean the scavenge areas of the engine room. However, Constantino protested vehemently. In order to avoid more trouble, Vera chose to report the incident to Capt. Kolidas. Petitioners claimed that Constantino's dismissal was necessitated by reason of his unsatisfactory performance evaluation, violation of his contract of employment as he violated the provisions on insubordination and inefficiency, his angry and provocative utterances and his attempt to physically assault his superior. Thus, Constantino's dismissal was for a just cause and was resorted to in order to protect and maintain the peace of the vessel and the safety of its crew. In support of their allegations, the petitioners attached a facsimile message dated February 1, 2008 (Annex "2"),[9] purportedly signed by Capt. Kolidas; an unsigned facsimile message dated February 9, 2008 (Annex "2-A"),[10] with an attached "decklog extract" dated February 9, 2008 (Annex "2-B");[11] and a letter dated January 6, 2008 (Annex "3"),[12] signed by Vera and attested to by two witnesses, namely, Edgar Villanueva, sthe vessel's Third Engineer, and Rigor Buenaventura, the vessel's Electrician. Ruling of the Labor Arbiter In its assailed Decision dated February 12, 2009, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. It ratiocinated that the pieces of evidence presented by the petitioners clearly showed that Constantino defied the lawful orders of his superior officer. This, according to the Labor Arbiter, constituted serious misconduct and willful disobedience which are legal causes for termination of an employee. Further, considering that his termination was valid, the Labor Arbiter ruled that Constantino was not entitled to his money claims. The dispositive portion of the decision states: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the instant case for lack of merit.[13] Aggrieved, Constantino elevated an appeal to the NLRC. Constantino later submitted an Affidavit[14] dated April 3, 2009 as an addendum to his appeal memorandum. In the said affidavit, he specifically denied the allegations against him by the petitioners. Ruling of the NLRC In its Decision dated September 30, 2009, the NLRC affirmed the February 12, 2009 Labor Arbiter's Decision. The NLRC concurred with the Labor Arbiter's observation that Constantino committed serious misconduct and willful disobedience when he disobeyed https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65452 3/14