4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly against the validity of the employee's dismissal.[26] It is therefore incumbent upon the 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.[27] This Court will not sanction a dismissal premised on mere conjectures and suspicions, the evidence must be substantial and not arbitrary and must be founded on clearly established facts sufficient to warrant his separation from work.[28] We find no cogent reason to depart from the conclusion reached by the POEA Adjudication Office in the case at bar. We also find merit in the petitioner's claim of refund for his repatriation plane ticket. The record shows that private respondent I.T. failed to controvert this claim of petitioner during the arbitration level at the POEA Adjudication Office. If at all, this belated claim of private respondent I.T., in the absence of proof therefor, and contrary to its Memorandum dated October 16, 1992 that respondent Samir had paid for the repatriation plane ticket of the petitioner, is merely an afterthought that deserves scant consideration from this Court. The POEA thus held that - "Noteworthy in the instant case is respondent's failure to deny complainant's allegation that he was the one who shouldered the cost of his return airfare in the amount of SR2,369.00. Having failed to deny the same, herein respondents are deemed to have admitted the same. Considering that the complainant in this case was illegally dismissed as mentioned earlier, the herein respondents are therefore liable to the repatriation expenses (return airfare in this case) of the herein complainant in the amount of SR 2,369.00 (per Annex `A')."[29] The solidary nature of the relationship of respondent I.T., as the local employment agency, and respondent Samir, its foreign principal, vis-a-vis the petitioner does not exempt respondent I.T. from presenting proof of its alleged payment of the repatriation plane ticket. In the absence of proof to the contrary, the evidence of petitioner in that regard, as pointed out by the Solicitor General, merits the favorable consideration of this Court, to wit: "It should be noted, however, that the only piece of evidence on the issue of payment of return airfare presented by petitioner is a "CERTIFICATION" signed by a certain Allan L. Timbayan, Labor Attache' in Jeddah. Said Certification reads: 'This is to certify that Overseas Contract Worker OMAR SEVILLANA, holder of passport No. DC 0605633, issued on 20 Nov. 1986 at Davao City, sought the assistance of this Office in connection with his employment problem. He stayed as stranded OCW at the Extension Office of the Labor Attache', Consulate General of the Philippines. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52120 9/12