G.R. No. 148893 ; July 12, 2006
Skippers United Pacific, Inc., petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Gervacio Rosaroso, and Court of Appeals, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Gervacio Rosaroso was hired by petitioner Skippers United Pacific, Inc., a manning agency, as Third Engineer for Nicolakis Shipping, S.A., for a one-year contract starting July 10, 1997. He boarded the M/V Naval Gent on July 15, 1997, but was ordered to disembark in Bulgaria on August 7, 1997, and was repatriated to the Philippines. He subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, finding the dismissal illegal and awarding separation pay and unpaid salary. The NLRC affirmed this decision, and the Court of Appeals (CA) subsequently dismissed the petitioner’s certiorari petition, upholding the lower tribunals’ rulings.
Petitioner’s primary defense was a telexed Chief Engineer’s Report dated September 10, 1997, which cited respondent’s alleged lack of discipline, irresponsibility, and lack of diligence as grounds for dismissal. The Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and CA uniformly refused to give this document evidentiary weight, characterizing it as uncorroborated and hearsay, as it was based on the observations of superintending engineers and not on the Chief Engineer’s personal knowledge.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that respondent was illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision with modification regarding currency conversion. The core legal logic rests on the established principle that the employer bears the burden of proving that a dismissal is for a just or authorized cause. In this case, petitioner failed to discharge this burden convincingly. The Chief Engineer’s Report, being unverified and based on the purported observations of other individuals rather than the reporter’s own personal knowledge, was correctly deemed hearsay and lacking in probative value by the labor tribunals and the CA. Hearsay evidence, which is not based on personal knowledge, has no weight in law.
Furthermore, the question of whether respondent was dismissed for just cause is a question of fact. In a Rule 45 petition, the Supreme Court’s review is limited to errors of law, not fact. The factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, when affirmed by the NLRC and the CA, are generally conclusive and binding upon the Court, especially when supported by substantial evidence. Here, the consistent findings of all three lower bodies that the petitioner’s evidence was insufficient to establish a valid cause for dismissal are accorded finality. The Court found no compelling reason to deviate from these findings, as the petitioner presented no substantial evidence to overturn the conclusion of illegal dismissal.