After a careful assessment of he evidence and the arguments of the parties, the POEA in its
decision of 18 January 1994 ruled in favor of petitioner. It did not give credence to private
respondents contention that petitioner voluntarily terminated his employment. It held that the
entry in petitioners seamans book as to the cause of his discharge was sufficiently rebutted by
petitioners reply-affidavitiii[3] wherein he stated that it was impossible for him to inform his
Master of his fathers death as his father died as early as 1971.iv[4] The POEA likewise noted
that if petitioner actually requested his immediate repatriation, he should have executed a
resignation letter or a letter-request for repatriation, but private respondents did not present any
before the POEA. Accordingly, it declared as illegal the dismissal of petitioner and ordered
TRANSORIENT, DAISHIN and Times Surety and Insurance Co.v[5] to pay him, jointly and
severally, his salary corresponding to the unexpired portion of his contract or US $6,426.66 plus
P33,591.40 as repatriation expenses and ten percent (10%) of the total award as attorneys fees.
Petitioners charge of unauthorized deductions, which he failed to prove, was not given due
course. His claim for moral and exemplary damages was dismissed by POEA for want of
jurisdiction to award them.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision of the POEA. It ruled that contrary to the findings of
the POEA, the repatriation of petitioner was voluntary or upon his request as no ill motive could
be ascribed to private respondents in terminating his employment. In fact, it emphasized that his
performance as entered in the seamans book was excellent and very good.vi[6] Moreover, the
NLRC noted that petitioners seamans book was with him when he left for the Philippines; thus,
petitioner could not feign ignorance of the reason for his repatriation, i.e., that his father
died.vii[7] The NLRC likewise took into consideration the fact that petitioner filed his complaint
seven (7) months after his return to the Philippines.
Petitioner sought reconsideration but NLRC denied his motion. Hence this special civil action
raising the basic issue of whether the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in reversing the
decision of the POEA which found petitioner to have been illegally dismissed by his employer.
As a general rule, the factual findings and conclusions drawn by the NLRC are accorded great
weight and respect upon appeal, and even finality, as long as they are supported by substantial
evidence.viii[8] However, where the findings of the POEA and the NLRC contradict each other,
this Court must examine the records of the case and the evidence presented to determine which
of them should be preferred as more conformable with the established facts.ix[9]
In the instant case, there is no dispute that petitioner was repatriated by private respondents prior
to the expiration of his contract of employment. Thus, it is incumbent upon private respondents
to prove by the quantum of evidence required by law that petitioner was not dismissed, or if
dismissed, that the dismissal was not illegal; otherwise, the dismissal would be unjustified.x[10]
In reversing the POEA, the NLRC relied on the claim of private respondents that petitioner could
not have been dismissed because his seamans book bore the remarks that he was an excellent and
very good employee and that he was discharged by reason of his fathers death.xi[11] The NLRC
appears to have been clearly misguided, as it is obvious that petitioners seamans book was the
only basis for private respondents' claim of voluntary repatriation. In fact when private
respondents were faced with the reply-affidavit of petitioner stating that he could not have