Orquinaza, who caused private respondents dismissal and recommendation, are highly suspicious and do not in any way prove that the alleged incidents showing private respondents incompetence were ever investigated and proven,xxix[29] as they were sufficiently rebutted by the entries in the seamans book.xxx[30] Mere allegations are not synonymous with proof. Further, the POEA administrator and the Respondent Commission have cleared the private respondent of such charges, noting that he sufficiently rebutted them. Petitioners, on the other hand, presented no adequate evidence or argument to tilt the weight of the evidence in their favor. Without factual basis are their contentions which are as follows: (1) private respondent had been inactive and unemployed for five years prior to his employment with petitioners; and (2) developments in ship technology, equipment and damage control measures, during the five years he was unemployed, gravely affected his expertise. Petitioners failed to specify these alleged advanced equipment and measures. Neither did they explain that the instances where private respondent allegedly endangered the ship and its crew involved any of these advanced equipment and measures. The Court sees no justification to depart from the well-settled rule that the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the Respondent Commission, which have acquired expertise in the matters entrusted to their jurisdiction, are accorded by the Supreme Court not only respect but even finality if they are supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.xxxi[31] Petitioners, in our view, failed to rebut the following observations of the Respondent Commission:xxxii[32] After perusing the records of this case, we arrived at the conclusion that the Honorable POEA Administrator committed no reversible error in finding that the dismissal of the complainant herein was illegal and violative of the contract of employment. [Petitioners] allegation that [private respondent] was validly terminated because of inefficiency on the basis of their consultants report would not merit [o]ur judicial approval because of the following reasons: First, it was [petitioners] themselves who hired and contracted the services of [private respondent], presumably after considering his years of experience and records of performance, otherwise, it would not have entered into a one year contract of employment with [private respondent]. It is highly unthinkable that [a] company like them would be so naive as to be hoodwink[ed] into hiring somebody who is not an expert and does not know anything. Not if [w]e are to consider that they ply international routes and capable of offering such princely benefits as they did to [private respondent]. Second, the report of their British consultant is suspect to being one made out of vengeance, what with the altercation that transpired between them immediately prior to the preparation of the report. xxxx But more importantly, the detailed report (See, p. 125 of Rollo), said consultant[s report] was to [o]ur mind substantially rebutted by complainant one after the other in his position paper dated October 2, 1987 (See, pp.