5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the labor tribunals from its factual findings (i.e., that Moradas committed the acts of pilferage, sabotage and self-burning). The CA reversed the labor tribunals' conclusion on the ground that there was "no logical and causal connection between the act of pilferage and the act of causing the flood in the engine room sufficient to make a conclusion that [Moradas] willfully burned himself."[21] In this case, the ponencia saw the need "to review the records to determine which of [these factual findings and conclusions] should be preferred as more conformable to evidentiary facts"[22] just because there is a conflict between the findings of the LA and of the NLRC. As previously discussed, this approach does not have strong legal mooring. While the Court really has to undertake a review of the records before it, for emphasis, its evaluation of the evidence on record is limited to ascertaining the correctness of the CA's decision in finding the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion. In the present case, in determining the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion, the Court may examine, on the basis of the parties' presentations, whether the CA correctly determined that, at the NLRC level, the petitioners, Inc Shipmanagement, Inc., Captain Sigfredo Monterroto and/or Interorient Navigation Limited failed to present substantial evidence to prove their claim of a self-inflicted injury. Just because the LA and the NLRC, on one hand, and the CA, on the other hand, arrived at conflicting conclusions from the same pieces of evidence does not warrant the Court to unilaterally substitute its judgment based on its unbridled preference of the parties' evidence. II Reviewing the present CA decision under Rule 45 a. The parties' respective burdens In ruling that the CA legally erred in finding that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion, the ponencia correctly stated that the petitioners must prove by substantial evidence that Moradas' injury was self-inflicted. According to the ponencia, the NLRC had cogent legal bases to conclude that the petitioners have proven by substantial evidence that Moradas' injuries were self-inflicted, on the following grounds: 1. Moradas was responsible for the flooding and burning incidents; 2. Moradas' claim that the burning was caused by the explosion in the incinerator is not supported by the evidence on record; and 3. The petitioners' theory that Moradas' bums were self inflicted is bolstered by the existence of motive; thereby, a finding on his mental fitness may be dispensed with. I strongly disagree. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56605 18/31