G.R. No. 221664 - RUBEN M. BUENAFLOR, VS. STOLT-NIELSEN PHILIPPINES, INC., AND STOLT-NIELSEN ITS GMBH.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the LA ordered the respondents to pay petitioner the following: (1) USD19,060.64, representing petitioner's salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract; [28] (2) USD538.69 as vacation leave pay; (3) USD550.00 as bonus; [29] (4) PHP100,000.00 as moral damages for bad faith and malice in causing the illegal dismissal; (5) PHP100,000.00 as exemplary damages, likewise for bad faith and malice in causing the illegal dismissal; and (6) USD3,867.12 as attorney's fees, equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total award. [30] First , the LA did not give credence to the alleged acts and omissions of petitioner purportedly showing his inefficiency and incompetence as related by the respondents, finding these as mere allegations unsupported by evidence. [31] Second , the LA likewise held that the logbook entry of the July 27, 2010 incident cannot, by itself, be considered conclusive evidence against petitioner since its authenticity has been assailed by the latter. [32] On this point, the LA agreed with petitioner's observations as to the copy of page 41 of the vessel's logbook, noting that the gap of almost two (2) months, as well as the blank space, between the entry regarding the MARPOL incident recorded on July 29, 2010 and the succeeding entry dated September 4, 2010 is not the usual mode of writing entries on the logbook. [33] The LA thus also agreed that it was possible that the logbook entry dated July 29, 2010 was merely inserted, since there was no evidence on record showing the entries on the pages before and after. [34] Third , the LA did not give probative value to the printouts of the two (2) NIRs submitted by the respondents, finding that these were not signed by either the author thereof or petitioner, and therefore could have easily been prepared by anyone. [35] Finally , the LA rejected the notice of dismissal allegedly served on petitioner as evidence, ruling that one of the supposed witnesses to the service of the notice and the refusal of petitioner to receive the same Second Engineer B. Solodov [36] seems to have already signed off the vessel on June 13, 2010, according to one of the entries appearing on page 41 of the logbook, [37] and yet no entry showed that he has signed on the vessel on or before August 22, 2010 in order for him to be a proper witness to the same. [38] Dissatisfied, respondents appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC Ruling Initially, the NLRC issued a Decision [39] dated December 22, 2011 granting the appeal. [40] However, on motion filed by petitioner, the NLRC promulgated a Resolution [41] dated August 30, 2012 reversing its earlier ruling, and accordingly, affirming the LA ruling. [42] In ruling that there is no substantial evidence proving petitioner's incompetence, the NLRC held that the logbook entry cannot be considered a substantial evidence of petitioner's alleged inefficiency or incompetence, not only because its authenticity is in question, but also because no clear and competent evidence