6/5/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
did not err in reversing and setting aside the factual conclusions of the labor tribunals
that Avestruz’s dismissal was lawful. Instead, the Court finds that there was no just or
valid cause for his dismissal, hence, he was illegally dismissed.
Petitioners maintain that Avestruz was dismissed on the ground of insubordination,
consisting of his “repeated failure to obey his superior’s order to maintain cleanliness in
the galley of the vessel” as well as his act of “insulting a superior officer by words or
deeds.”[60] In support of this contention, petitioners presented as evidence the e-mails
sent by Captain Woodward, both dated June 22, 2011, and time-stamped 10:07 a.m.
and 11:40 a.m., respectively, which they claim chronicled the relevant circumstances
that eventually led to Avestruz’s dismissal.
The Court, however, finds these e-mails to be uncorroborated and self-serving, and
therefore, do not satisfy the requirement of substantial evidence as would sufficiently
discharge the burden of proving that Avestruz was legally dismissed. On the contrary,
petitioners failed to prove that he committed acts of insubordination which would
warrant his dismissal.
Insubordination, as a just cause for the dismissal of an employee, necessitates the
concurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the employee’s assailed conduct must have
been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the
order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and
must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.[61]
In this case, the contents of Captain Woodward’s e-mails do not establish that
Avestruz’s conduct had been willful, or characterized by a wrongful and perverse
attitude. The Court concurs with the CA’s observation that Avestruz’s statement[62]
regarding the incident in the galley deserves more credence, being corroborated[63] by
Kong, a messman who witnessed the same.
Conversely, apart from Captain Woodward’s e-mails, no other evidence was presented
by the petitioners to support their claims. While rules of evidence are not strictly
observed in proceedings before administrative bodies,[64] petitioners should have
offered additional proof to corroborate the statements[65] described therein. Thus, in
Ranises v. NLRC[66] which involved a seafarer who was repatriated to the Philippines
for allegedly committing illegal acts amounting to a breach of trust, as based on a telex
dispatch by the Master of the vessel, the Court impugned and eventually vetoed the
credence given by the NLRC upon the telex, to wit:
Unfortunately, the veracity of the allegations contained in the aforecited
telex was never proven by respondent employer. Neither was it shown that
respondent employer exerted any effort to even verify the truthfulness of
Capt. Sonoda’s report and establish petitioner’s culpability for his alleged
illegal acts. Worse, no other evidence was submitted to corroborate the
charges against petitioner.[67]
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/59563
6/13