eloquent statement that the position paper they submitted sufficiently covered all the issues. On the other hand, private respondents Motion for Decision, dated November 10, 1989, indubitably shows his waiver of his earlier requested hearing.xxiv[24] This motion was similarly unopposed by petitioners. So too, petitioners present insistence on the necessity of a hearing is weakened by the fact that their memorandum before this Court failed to specify the matters which would have required a hearing. In all, the Court concurs with the POEA administrator and Respondent Commission that a verbal hearing was dispensable. Petitioners belated insistence is a veiled attempt to reopen an otherwise decided case. Aside from being late, this attempt is purely dilatory, designed to unnecessarily prolong the resolution of the case. The Court holds that petitioners were not denied due process. No grave abuse of discretion was committed by Respondent Commission. Second Issue: Private Respondent Was Illegally Dismissed Where there is no showing of a clear, valid, and legal cause for the termination of employment, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal. Verily, the burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause.xxv[25] For an employees dismissal to be valid, (1) the dismissal must be for a valid cause and (2) the employee must be afforded due process.xxvi[26] Article 282 of the Labor Code lists the following causes for termination of employment by the employer: (1) serious misconduct or willful disobedience of lawful orders in connection with his or her work, (2) gross and habitual neglect of duties, (3) fraud or willful breach of trust, (4) commission of a crime or an offense against the person of the employer or his immediate family member or representative, and (5) analogous cases.xxvii[27] The absence of a valid cause for termination in this case is patent. Petitioners allege that private respondent was dismissed because of his incompetence, enumerating incidents in proof thereof. However, this is contradicted by private respondents seamans book which states that his discharge was due to an emergency leave. Moreover, his alleged incompetence is belied by the remarks made by petitioners in the same book that private respondents services were highly recommended and that his conduct and ability were rated very good. Petitioners allegation that such remark and ratings were given to private respondent as an accommodation for future employment fails to persuade. The Court cannot consent to such an accommodation, even if the allegation were true, as it is a blatant misrepresentation. It cannot exculpate petitioners based on such (mis)representation. When petitioners issued the accommodation, they must have known its possible repercussions. They cannot be allowed to turn against their representation. As correctly argued by the solicitor general in his comment, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to clearly establish that the discharge was for a just cause before they could legitimately terminate the private respondents services. However, they miserably failed in this respect.xxviii[28] The alleged incidents of incompetence were unsupported by relevant and convincing evidence. The affidavits of Robinson and Capt. Jose B.