Similarly in this case, petitioner should have presented other evidence to corroborate its claim that respondent’s acts or omissions aboard  the vessel M/V Naval Gent warrant his immediate repatriation.  Moreover, the fact that the Report was accomplished on September 10, 1999, or more than a month after respondent was repatriated, makes it all the more suspect, and was obviously made to make it appear that there were valid reasons for respondent’s dismissal.   Another analogous case worth citing is Pacific Maritime Services, Inc. v. Ranay.[22]  This case involved two seafarers repatriated to the Philippines for committing acts on board the vessel M/V Star Princess, which acts amounted to serious misconduct, insubordination, non-observance of proper hours of work and damage to the laundry of the vessel’s crew and passengers.  In support of its claim that the respondents were validly dismissed, the petitioners presented its lone evidence, a telefax transmission purportedly executed and signed by a certain Armando Villegas, detailing the incidents which prompted the termination of private respondents’ services.   The Court, however, ruled that the telefax transmission is not sufficient evidence, viz.:   Petitioners’ reliance on the telefax transmission signed by Armando Villegas is woefully inadequate in meeting the required quantum of proof which is substantial evidence.  For one thing, the same is uncorroborated.  Although substantial evidence is not a function of quantity but rather of quality, the peculiar environmental circumstances of the instant case demand that something more should have been proffered.  According to the account of Villegas, it appears that the incidents he was referring to transpired with the knowledge of some crew members.  The alleged assault by Gerardo Ranay on Villegas, for instance, was supposedly witnessed by at least four other crew members.  Surprisingly, none of them was called upon to testify, either in person or through sworn statements.  Worse, Villegas himself who omitted some vital details in his report, such as the time and date of the incidents referred to, was not even presented as witness so that private respondents and  the POEA hearing officer could have been given an opportunity  to cross-examine and propound clarificatory questions regarding  matters averred by him in the telefax transmission. Moreover,  although signed, the same was not under oath and, therefore, of dubious veracity and reliability although admissible. Likewise, the motive is suspect and the account of the incidents dangerously susceptible to bias since it came from a person with whom private respondents were at odds.  All told,