4/15/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The Court does not agree. In ruling that suicide had not been duly proved, the Panel relied on the "consistent, coherent and spontaneous narration by [the petitioner] of her pleasant, joyful and very happy telephone conversation with the deceased x x x. "[101] From her statement, the Panel was able to conclude that Manuel could not have possibly taken his own life since he and the petitioner did not have a dysfunctional family as in fact, they had a very close, warm and loving relationship,[102] and Manuel was a very caring husband, filled with beautiful dreams and plans for his wife and siblings.[103] Apart from these general statements, no proof whatsoever could be found on the records that would sufficiently establish the veracity of the same. As correctly observed by the CA, the petitioner "could have supported her allegations with text messages and emails[,] or could have narrated her conversations with her husband and the frequency thereof to at least lend her version some credibility and weight. Absent these, [the court is] bound to uphold the well-settled rule that bare allegations are unworthy of belief."[104] It must be emphasized that technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases, [105] and that the quantum of proof required here is only substantial evidence, defined as "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion."[106] Thus, while it may be true that the documentary evidence adduced by respondents were photocopies, the Court cannot discount the fact that the statements of the crew members of the vessel as well as the autopsy report issued by the Sri Lankan authority coincide with the NBI autopsy report which concluded that the cause of death to be "consistent with asphyxia by ligature." As such, the NBI autopsy report lends credence to and bolsters the account of the respondents that Manuel took his own life. In other words, the NBI autopsy report, autopsy report prepared by Dr. Ruwanpura and Investigation Report, taken together, substantially prove that Manuel's death was due to his deliberate act of killing himself by committing suicide. It is of no moment that the NBI Autopsy Report did not categorically state that suicide or hanging was the cause of death. The fact remains that the same report found no evidence of foul play in the death of Manuel. Perforce, the Court must agree that death by suicide had been sufficiently proved. Petitioner is entitled to death benefits and reimbursement for transportation and burial expenses Crucial to the determination of petitioner's entitlement to death benefits as well as her right to get reimbursement for transportation and burial expenses she incurred are Sections 18.1 b, 21, 22, and 25 of the CBA. However, as observed by the CA, the copy of the CBA attached to the petition filed before it did not completely cite Section 21, while Section 25 was missing. As such, the CA adopted the parties' citation of Section 25 and lifted from the copy of the CBA submitted to it the available portions of Section 21.[107] Viz.: [SEC. 25.1] - If a seafarer dies through any cause whilst in the employment of the Company including death from natural causes and death occurring whilst traveling to and from the vessel, or as a result of marine or other https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66237 23/37