G.R. No. 207010 - MAERSK-FILIPINAS CREWING, INC., A.P. MOLLER SINGAPORE PTE. LIMITED, AND JESUS AGBAYANI, VS. TORIBIO C. AVESTRUZ,*.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, dismissing the complaint, albeit with payment of nominal damages for violation of procedural due process. The Courts Ruling The petition is devoid of merit. Generally, a re-examination of factual findings cannot be done by the Court acting on a petition for review on certiorari because the Court is not a trier of facts but reviews only questions of law. [53] Thus, in petitions for review on certiorari , only questions of law may generally be put into issue. This rule, however, admits of certain exceptions. [54] In this case, considering that the factual findings of the LA and the NLRC, on the one hand, and the CA, on the other hand, are contradictory, the general rule that only legal issues may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court does not apply, [55] and the Court retains the authority to pass upon the evidence presented and draw conclusions therefrom. [56] It is well-settled that the burden of proving that the termination of an employee was for a just or authorized cause lies with the employer. If the employer fails to meet this burden, the conclusion would be that the dismissal was unjustified and, therefore, illegal. [57] In order to discharge this burden, the employer must present substantial evidence, which is defined as that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion, [58] and not based on mere surmises or conjectures. [59] After a punctilious examination of the evidence on record, the Court finds that the CA did not err in reversing and setting aside the factual conclusions of the labor tribunals that Avestruzs 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 superiors 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 Avestruzs 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 employees assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violat