6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly reasons for its imposition, with copies thereof furnished to the Philippine Agent.[46] In arriving at the monetary awards given to Avestruz, the CA considered the provisions of Section 7 of Republic Act No. (RA) 10022,[47] amending RA 8042,[48] which grants upon the illegally dismissed overseas worker “the full reimbursement [of] his placement fee and the deductions made with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract.” However, with respect to Avestruz’s claims for overtime and leave pay, the same were denied for failure to show entitlement thereto. All other monetary claims were likewise denied in the absence of substantial evidence to prove the same. Finally, the CA awarded attorney’s fees of ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award in accordance with Article 111[49] of the Labor Code.[50] Petitioners moved for reconsideration,[51] which the CA denied in its Resolution[52] dated April 16, 2013, hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court The sole issue advanced for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA erred when it reversed and set aside the ruling of the NLRC finding that Avestruz was legally dismissed and accordingly, dismissing the complaint, albeit with payment of nominal damages for violation of procedural due process. The Court’s Ruling The petition is devoid of merit. Generally, a re-examination of factual findings cannot be done by the Court acting on a petition for review on certiorari because the Court is not a trier of facts but reviews only questions of law.[53] Thus, in petitions for review on certiorari, only questions of law may generally be put into issue. This rule, however, admits of certain exceptions.[54] In this case, considering that the factual findings of the LA and the NLRC, on the one hand, and the CA, on the other hand, are contradictory, the general rule that only legal issues may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court does not apply,[55] and the Court retains the authority to pass upon the evidence presented and draw conclusions therefrom.[56] It is well-settled that the burden of proving that the termination of an employee was for a just or authorized cause lies with the employer. If the employer fails to meet this burden, the conclusion would be that the dismissal was unjustified and, therefore, illegal.[57] In order to discharge this burden, the employer must present substantial evidence, which is defined as that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion,[58] and not based on mere surmises or conjectures.[59] After a punctilious examination of the evidence on record, the Court finds that the CA elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/59563 5/13