STOLT-NIELSEN MARINE SERVICES (PHILS.), INC. and STOLT... http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/105396.htm DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN AWARDING PRIVATE RESPONDENT FIXED OVERTIME (PAY) IN THE AMOUNT OF US$2,500.00. III WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE PROVIDED UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. [6] It is averred that public respondents have failed to aptly consider petitioners evidence showing private respondents repeated refusal to obey the orders of the master, amounting to [7] serious misconduct and/or gross insubordination or disobedience, to be the real cause for the questioned dismissal. The argument is anchored on the evidentiary value of the log book [8] [9] entries, and in the holdings of the Court in Haverton Shipping Ltd. vs. NLRC and [10] Abacast Shipping and Management Agency, Inc. vs. NLRC. It should be stressed at the outset that the employer has the burden of proving that the [11] dismissal of an employee is for a just cause. In an attempt to discharge this burden, petitioners have merely presented, by way of annexes to their position paper before the POEA and reply to private respondents position paper, copies of log book abstracts. In Abacast Shipping, the Court has ruled that entries in the ships log book are prima facie evidence of the incident only if the logbook itself containing such entries or photocopies of the pertinent pages thereof are represented in evidence; hence The log book is a respectable record that can be relied upon to authenticate the charges filed and the procedure taken against the employees prior to their dismissal. Curiously, however, no entry from such log book was presented at all in this case. What was offered instead was the shipmasters report, which was later claimed to be a collation of excerpts from such book. It would have been a simple matter, considering the ease of reproducing the same, to make photocopies of the pertinent pages of the log book to substantiate the petitioners contention. Why this was not done is something that reasonably arouses the curiosity of this Court and suggests that there probably were no entries in the log book at all that could have proved the alleged offenses of the private respondents. [12] The Court, no different from public respondents, finds it hard to believe, let alone to conclude, that private respondent has been guilty of willful disobedience to warrant dismissal. Willful disobedience of the employers lawful order envisages the concurrence of at least two requisites: (a) The employees assailed conduct must have been intentional and characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude, and (b) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, and made known to the employee and should pertain to the duties which he has been engaged [13] to discharge. It is possible that private respondent may have indeed shown some reluctance to the captains order; nevertheless, he ultimately did comply with the orders of the captain. Not the least insignificant is that the Captains assignments have not been the contractually assigned tasks of private respondent. Petitioners call attention to the mutual assistance proviso of the collective bargaining agreement; viz: "Sec. 6. Mutual assistance shall be exercised by all officers/ratings regardless of rank and position assisting each other in the working of the vessel both in engine room, deck and tank cleaning included. (sic) [14] As has been so correctly pointed out by the POEA, however, the above provision, falling under 3 of 6 1/20/2016 2:19 PM