11/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the lawful orders of his superior officer, when he challenged his superior officer to a fistfight, and when he attempted to assault his superior officer. Thus, the petitioners have the right to terminate his employment. The dispositive portion of the decision provides: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 12 February 2009 is hereby AFFIRMED.[15] Constantino moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the NLRC in its Resolution dated January 15, 2010. Undaunted, Constantino filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. The Ruling of the CA In its Decision dated May 28, 2015, the CA reversed and set aside the September 30, 2009 Decision and the January 15, 2010 Resolution of the NLRC. The appellate court did not share the conclusions reached by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Instead, it ruled that the petitioners failed to present substantial evidence to prove that Constantino's dismissal was made for a valid and justifiable cause. It opined that the documents presented by the petitioners, constituting of the facsimile messages and Vera's letter, are insufficient to prove the alleged insubordination and defiance by Constantino. It stressed that the rule that the entries in the ship's logbook are prima facie evidence of the incident in question is true only if the logbook itself containing such entries or photocopies of the pertinent pages thereof were presented in evidence. It noted that in this case, what the petitioners presented are only facsimile messages purportedly containing typewritten excerpts from the ship's logbook. Thus, they could not be considered as prima facie evidence of the incidents in question. The appellate court also found the facsimile message dated February 1, 2008 to be dubious and unreliable. In this facsimile message, Capt. Kolidas stated that Constantino started creating problems against Vera since he boarded the vessel and that Constantino even challenged Vera to a fight. For these reasons, he stated that he was of the opinion that Constantino must be replaced as the Second Engineer as soon as possible. However, the appellate court noted that this facsimile message was sent only on February 20, 2008 as could be shown by the electronic annotation "20/02/2008 14:41" appearing on the upper right corner of the message. This, according to the appellate court, is inconsistent with the facts of the case considering that Constantino was already informed of his dismissal on February 14, 2008, and that he already disembarked from the vessel on February 18, 2008. The appellate court further ruled that Vera's January 6, 2008 letter is self-serving and uncorroborated by any evidence. As such, it cannot be given any weight and credit. The appellate court further ruled that the petitioners failed to afford Constantino due process. It observed that the petitioners failed to comply with the two-notice requirement prior to the termination of the employment of an employee. In sum, the appellate court ruled that Constantino was dismissed without just cause and without due process. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision states: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65452 4/14