6/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Maryville Manila moved for a reconsideration but was denied.[17] Hence, this recourse. Maryville Manila argued that the CA erred in evaluating the parties' evidence in certiorari proceedings and insisted that Lloyd was neither repatriated for medical reason nor refused medical treatment.[18] RULING The petition is meritorious. Foremost, we cannot fault the CA in reviewing the parties' evidence in certiorari proceedings. In labor cases, the CA is empowered to evaluate the materiality and significance of the evidence alleged to have been capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarded by the NLRC in relation to all other evidence on record. The CA can grant the prerogative writ of certiorari when the factual findings complained of are not supported by the evidence on record; when it is necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice; when the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the LA; and when necessary to arrive at a just decision of the case.[19] To make this finding, the CA necessarily has to view the evidence to determine if the NLRC ruling had substantial basis.[20] Contrary to Maryville Manila's contention, the CA can examine the evidence of the parties since the factual findings of the NLRC and the LA are contradicting. Indeed, this Court has the same authority to sift through the factual findings of both the CA and the NLRC in the event of their conflict.[21] This Court is not precluded from reviewing the factual issues when there are conflicting findings by the CA, the NLRC and the LA.[22] Here, we find that the CA erroneously concluded that Lloyd was medically repatriated and that Maryville Manila and Maryville Maritime have the burden to establish otherwise. The CA misread the rulings in Baron and Barros which involved cases for illegal dismissal. In Baron, the petitioners, who are taxi drivers, asserted that they were unceremoniously dismissed after they charged respondents of violating the collective bargaining agreement. The respondents did not refute such absence from work but averred that it was petitioners who abandoned their jobs. However, the theory of abandonment was unsubstantiated. In that case, we ruled that the Labor Code places upon the employer the burden of proving that the dismissal of an employee was for a valid or authorized cause. It does not distinguish whether the employer admits or does not admit the dismissal.[23] In Barros, the petitioner, a seafarer, claims illegal dismissal, recovery of salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his employment contract, repatriation expenses, unauthorized deductions and payments, damages and attorney's fees. In that case, we denied the private respondents' argument that the petitioner voluntarily terminated his employment on the claim that he himself requested repatriation. The private respondents did not dispute that petitioner was repatriated prior to the expiration of his employment contract. As such, it is incumbent upon the employer to prove that the petitioner was not dismissed, or if dismissed, that the dismissal was not illegal; otherwise, the dismissal would be unjustified. Notably, Lloyd's cause of action is for total and permanent disability benefits and not illegal dismissal or pre-termination of his overseas employment contract. The fact that https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66675 5/13