STOLT-NIELSEN MARINE SERVICES (PHILS.), INC. and STOLT... http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/105396.htm the general item, Working Hours, is primarily for properly computing extra compensation, and it is not intended to coerce, compel, or force the crew members to perform jobs other than what [15] The Court, even then, shares POEAS observation that they have been contracted for. Respondents CBA provision on mutual assistance should be applied with leniency. If respondents defense will be given credence, then the job designations in the employment contract will be rendered inutile. All other members of the crew can be requested to perform jobs other than what they are contracted for any if they refuse, they could be terminated for insubordination. Such defense, definitely, cannot be allowed for this is in square defiance (of) the Constitutional mandate of protection to labor. [16] Providing assistance to other members of the crew in their jobs on board a vessel when needed or required is violative neither of labor laws nor of the employment contract except when such assistance becomes regularly imposed. In his case, private respondent was made to perform various tasks other than his contractually assigned work from the very moment he boarded the vessel. Even when an employee is found to have transgressed the employers rules, in the actual imposition of penalties upon the erring employee, due consideration must still be given to his [17] length of service and the number of violations committed during his employ. The penalty [18] must in no case be unduly and grossly disproportionate. The law so requires, as a vital component of due process, an observance of the twin requirements of notice and hearing before the dismissal of an employee. Thus, it could not be enough for his dismissal that private respondent was advised of his infractions and given the opportunity to explain his side after he had supposedly refused to assist in the berthing and unberthing maneuvers, and that when he refused to clean the cargo [19] tank, the pertinent portion of the CBA on mutual assistance was read to him. The procedure was far short of the legal mandate. The Court has once said: On the issue of due process x x x, the law requires the employer to furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement of the cause or causes for termination and shall afford him ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of a representative. Specifically, the employer must furnish the worker with two (2) written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected: (a) notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (b) the subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employers decision to dismiss him. [20] [21] In another case the Court has explained: An employee cannot just be separated from his employment without according him his constitutional right of due process, consisting of the proper notice and hearing. No notice of any form, apprising of the proffered charges, was served on petitioner, much less was a hearing conducted wherein he could have defended himself. The fact that the defense interposed at the hearing would be outlandish or pure nonsense, is not a ground to cut short the procedure for dismissal. As this Court ruled in Seahorse Maritime Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 173 SCRA 390 (1989), that before a seaman can be dismissed and discharged from the vessel, it is required that he be given a written notice regarding the charges against him and 4 of 6 1/20/2016 2:19 PM