G.R. No. 222939 - MECO MANNING & CREWING SERVICES, INC. AND CAPT. IGMEDIO G. SORRERA, VS. CONSTANTINO R. CUYOS.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the instant case for lack of merit. [13] Aggrieved, Constantino elevated an appeal to the NLRC. Constantino later submitted an Affidavit [14] dated April 3, 2009 as an addendum to his appeal memorandum. In the said affidavit, he specifically denied the allegations against him by the petitioners. Ruling of the NLRC In its Decision dated September 30, 2009, the NLRC affirmed the February 12, 2009 Labor Arbiter's Decision. The NLRC concurred with the Labor Arbiter's observation that Constantino committed serious misconduct and willful disobedience when he disobeyed the lawful orders of his superior officer, when he challenged his superior officer to a fistfight, and when he attempted to assault his superior officer. Thus, the petitioners have the right to terminate his employment. The dispositive portion of the decision provides: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 12 February 2009 is hereby AFFIRMED . [15] Constantino moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the NLRC in its Resolution dated January 15, 2010. Undaunted, Constantino filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. The Ruling of the CA In its Decision dated May 28, 2015, the CA reversed and set aside the September 30, 2009 Decision and the January 15, 2010 Resolution of the NLRC. The appellate court did not share the conclusions reached by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Instead, it ruled that the petitioners failed to present substantial evidence to prove that Constantino's dismissal was made for a valid and justifiable cause. It opined that the documents presented by the petitioners, constituting of the facsimile messages and Vera's letter, are insufficient to prove the alleged insubordination and defiance by Constantino. It stressed that the rule that the entries in the ship's logbook are prima facie evidence of the incident in question is true only if the logbook itself containing such entries or photocopies of the pertinent pages thereof were presented in evidence. It noted that in this case, what the petitioners presented are only facsimile messages purportedly containing typewritten excerpts from the ship's logbook. Thus, they could not be considered as prima facie evidence of the incidents in question. The appellate court also found the facsimile message dated February 1, 2008 to be dubious and unreliable. In this facsimile message, Capt. Kolidas stated that Constantino started creating problems against Vera since he boarded the vessel and that Constantino even challenged Vera to a fight. For these reasons, he stated that he was of the opinion that Constantino must be replaced as the Second Engineer as soon as possible. However, the appellate court noted that this facsimile message was sent only on February 20, 2008 as could be shown by the electronic annotation "20/02/2008 14:41" appearing on the upper right corner of the message. This, according to the appe