6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly did not err in reversing and setting aside the factual conclusions of the labor tribunals that Avestruz’s dismissal was lawful. Instead, the Court finds that there was no just or valid cause for his dismissal, hence, he was illegally dismissed. Petitioners maintain that Avestruz was dismissed on the ground of insubordination, consisting of his “repeated failure to obey his superior’s order to maintain cleanliness in the galley of the vessel” as well as his act of “insulting a superior officer by words or deeds.”[60] In support of this contention, petitioners presented as evidence the e-mails sent by Captain Woodward, both dated June 22, 2011, and time-stamped 10:07 a.m. and 11:40 a.m., respectively, which they claim chronicled the relevant circumstances that eventually led to Avestruz’s dismissal. The Court, however, finds these e-mails to be uncorroborated and self-serving, and therefore, do not satisfy the requirement of substantial evidence as would sufficiently discharge the burden of proving that Avestruz was legally dismissed. On the contrary, petitioners failed to prove that he committed acts of insubordination which would warrant his dismissal. Insubordination, as a just cause for the dismissal of an employee, necessitates the concurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the employee’s assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.[61] In this case, the contents of Captain Woodward’s e-mails do not establish that Avestruz’s conduct had been willful, or characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude. The Court concurs with the CA’s observation that Avestruz’s statement[62] regarding the incident in the galley deserves more credence, being corroborated[63] by Kong, a messman who witnessed the same. Conversely, apart from Captain Woodward’s e-mails, no other evidence was presented by the petitioners to support their claims. While rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies,[64] petitioners should have offered additional proof to corroborate the statements[65] described therein. Thus, in Ranises v. NLRC[66] which involved a seafarer who was repatriated to the Philippines for allegedly committing illegal acts amounting to a breach of trust, as based on a telex dispatch by the Master of the vessel, the Court impugned and eventually vetoed the credence given by the NLRC upon the telex, to wit: Unfortunately, the veracity of the allegations contained in the aforecited telex was never proven by respondent employer. Neither was it shown that respondent employer exerted any effort to even verify the truthfulness of Capt. Sonoda’s report and establish petitioner’s culpability for his alleged illegal acts. Worse, no other evidence was submitted to corroborate the charges against petitioner.[67] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/59563 6/13