6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly witnesses, testimonies and any other documents in support thereof. (Emphases supplied) As the records are bereft of evidence showing compliance with the foregoing rules, the NLRC held petitioners jointly and severally liable to pay Avestruz the amount of P30,000.00 by way of nominal damages.[36] Avestruz moved for reconsideration[37] of the aforesaid Decision, which was denied in the Resolution[38] dated June 18, 2012. Dissatisfied, he elevated the matter to the CA via petition for certiorari.[39] The CA Ruling In a Decision[40] dated January 4, 2013, the CA reversed and set aside the rulings of the NLRC and instead, found Avestruz to have been illegally dismissed. Consequently, it directed petitioners to pay him, jointly and severally, the full amount of his placement fee and deductions made, with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, as well as his salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract, and attorney’s fees of ten percent (10%) of the total award. All other money claims were denied for lack of merit.[41] In so ruling, the CA found that the conclusion of the NLRC, which affirmed that of the LA, that Avestruz was lawfully dismissed, was not supported by substantial evidence, there being no factual basis for the charge of insubordination which petitioners claimed was the ground for Avestruz’s dismissal. It found that petitioners, as employers, were unable to discharge the burden of proof required of them to establish that Avestruz was guilty of insubordination, which necessitates the occurrence of two (2) conditions as a just cause for dismissal: (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. The CA found that, contrary to the rulings of the labor tribunals, there was no evidence on record to bolster petitioners’ claims that Avestruz willfully failed to comply with his duties as Chief Cook and that he displayed a perverse and wrongful attitude.[42] Moreover, it gave more credence to Avestruz’s account of the incident in the galley on June 22, 2011, being supported in part by the statement[43] of Kong, who witnessed the incident. On the other hand, the e-mails sent by Captain Woodward to Maersk were uncorroborated. On this score, the CA observed the absence of any logbook entries to support petitioners’ stance.[44] Similarly, the CA found that petitioners failed to accord procedural due process to Avestruz, there being no compliance with the requirements of Section 17 of the POEASEC as above-quoted, or the “two-notice rule.” It held that the statement[45] Captain Woodward issued to Avestruz neither contained the grounds for which he was being charged nor the date, time, and place for the conduct of a formal investigation. Likewise, Captain Woodward failed to give Avestruz any notice of penalty and the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/59563 4/13