their incompetence were not stated therein with particularity.  Hence, absent a more detailed narration in the logbook entry of the circumstances surrounding respondents’ alleged incompetence, the same cannot constitute a valid justification for their dismissal.             Additionally, the entries in the logbook stating the alleged incompetence of the respondents are contrary to what was stated in the confirmation letters issued by the captain of the vessel on the same date that the respondents were repatriated to Manila.  The said confirmation letters[37] contain statements that the respondents were signed off in order to transfer them to another vessel due to crew reduction. It was not cited in those letters that respondents were signed off because of their incompetence to perform their duties.  Ship Captain G. Aravadinos Karlatos duly signed such confirmation letters, which also bear the seal of the vessel M/VHanjin Vancouver.             Moreover, the Master’s Statement Report,[38] presented by the petitioners, to corroborate their claim that the dismissal of the respondents was for just cause i.e., incompetence, was issued 17 days after the respondents were repatriated to Manila and two months after the complaint for illegal dismissal was instituted by the respondents before the NLRC. Consequently, such report can no longer be a fair and accurate assessment of the respondents’ competence as the same was presented only after the complaint was filed.  Clearly, its execution was a mere afterthought in order to justify the dismissal of the respondents, which had long been effected before the report was made; hence, such report is a self-serving one.             Accordingly, this Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that it was not proven through substantial evidence that the respondents were dismissed for just cause.  The incompetence of the respondents as just cause for their dismissal was not properly proven and the evidence submitted by the petitioners before the administrative bodies are not enough to sustain the dismissal of the respondents. For this reason, this Court is not convinced that the respondents were legally dismissed.                 Nonetheless, even if there is a valid ground in dismissing the respondents, the petitioners cannot just dismiss them outright. The petitioners must also comply with the second requisite, which is, to afford the respondents due process.