6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The rest of complainant's monetary claims are dismissed for lack of merit including respondents' counterclaim against the complainant. SO ORDERED.[21] Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission In its Decision dated July 31, 2009, the NLRC set aside the Decision of the LA and dismissed the case for lack of merit. The NLRC was convinced that respondent's performance as chief cook was below the company's standard. It declared that the delay in filing the case proved the weakness of respondent's claim. It likewise held against respondent his execution of a quitclaim discharging petitioners from any liability in his favor. The NLRC also denied respondent's Motion for Reconsideration[22] in a Resolution dated October 23, 2009. Respondent thus filed a Petition for Certiorari[23] before the CA ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in finding that he was legally dismissed and was afforded due process of law. Ruling of the Court of Appeals On July 29, 2011, the CA rendered the assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is GRANTED. The NLRC Decision and Resolution dated July 31, 2009 and October 23, 2009, respectively, are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of Labor Arbiter Thelma M. Concepcion dated April 27, 2009 is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.[24] The CA noted that petitioners dismissed respondent because of his alleged incompetence and/or poor performance, as indicated in the Report of incompetent action/insubordination/indiscipline. The CA, however, found that this Report was neither authenticated nor supported by credible evidence. It also found that the Report did not explain or give details as regards the circumstances surrounding the supposed incompetence and poor performance of respondent. The CA further emphasized that electronic evidence, such as electronic mails (e-mails), must first be proved and authenticated before they are received in evidence. It also held that even if such e-mails were admitted in evidence, they could not support respondent's dismissal as they were based upon the self-serving statements of the officers of petitioners. The CA likewise held that the subject quitclaim did not preclude the filing of an illegal dismissal case against petitioners. It also held that while respondent executed a elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61248 3/10