informed the ship captain of his fathers death since his father had long been dead, or for more than twenty (20) years, private respondents countered that petitioner must have lied to the captain. They even stated in their comment that it is not uncommon for some seamen like herein petitioner to concoct excuses, like sickness or death of relatives, even if not true, to secure repatriation before the expiry of their contract.xii[12] We note with emphasis Sec. 5, rule 133, of the Rules of Court which provides: In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. The entries in the seamans book of petitioner cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered as substantial evidence to prove voluntary repatriation and lawful dismissal. We cannot rule otherwise for to do so may prove dangerous as all employers of seafarers will now be complacent in perpetrating indiscriminate acts of termination with the seamans book as their shield against culpability. Neither do we subscribe to the conclusion of the NLRC that the complaint must be dismissed as petitioner asserted his rights for the first time only after seven (7) months from his repatriation. It bears underscoring that petitioner reported to the office of private respondents to ask about his precipitate repatriation the day after his arrival in the Philippines and private respondents failed to dispute this allegation contained in petitioners complaint-affidavit. Moreover, it is significant to note that the complaint-affidavit was filed within the prescriptive period provided under the law. At any rate, the seven (7)-month interval between his repatriation and his actual filing of the complaint may be attributed to the fact that petitioner, aside from being a mere seafarer who is not equipped with the necessary legal knowledge to assert his rights, was promised another employment by private respondents upon his return to the Philippines. Thus, it can fairly be stated that when private respondents finally failed to fulfill their promise after a long while, petitioner had no choice but to pursue his rights to which he is entitled under the law. In sum, private respondents failed to substantiate their claim of voluntary repatriation. Thus, petitioner was discharged without cause, thereby rendering the dismissal illegal. As a result, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the decision of the POEA and consequently upholding petitioners dismissal. WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission dated 27 December 1995 is SET ASIDE while that of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration dated 18 January 1994 declaring the dismissal of petitioner as illegal and ordering private respondents TRANSORIENT Maritime Services Inc., DAISHIN Shipping Co., Ltd., and Times Surety and Insurance Co. 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, is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Buena, JJ., concur.