1)  LACK OF DISCIPLINE – HE RESENTED DISCIPLINE.  HE IS SEEN BY SUPT. ENGRS. ON SEVERAL OCCASION DURING WORKING HOURS STAYING ON PORTSIDE DECK SMOKING AND HAVING SNACKS.  MANY TIMES HE IS INSIDE THE GALLEY CHATTING WITH CHIEF COOK DURING WORKING HOURS AND HAVING SNACKS.  HE TENDS TO BE FREQUENTLY LATE FOR DUTY/WORK AND IS GENERALLY UNRELIABLE.    2)  IRRESPONSIBLE -  HE HAS NOT SHOWN A HIGH SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY AS 3/ENGR.  HE IS CAREFREE IN DISCHARGING HIS DUTIES IN MAINTAINING THE ASSIGNED MACHINERIES, SUCH AS BOILER, DIESEL GENERATORS, STARTING AIR COMPRESSORS AND VARIOUS PUMPS.  HE CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO DO HIS JOB UNLESS SUPERVISED PERPETUALLY.   3)  LACK OF DILIGENCE -  HE REQUIRES CONSTANT PUSHING AND HAS TO BE WATCHED  MOST OF THE TIME. LACK OF INITIATIVE REGARDLESS OF CONSTANT MOTIVATION.   SGD. JEROME A. RETARDO                CHIEF ENGR[9]   According to petitioner, the foregoing Report established that respondent was dismissed for just cause.  The CA, the NLRC, and the Labor Arbiter, however, refused to give credence to the Report.  They are one in ruling that the Report cannot be given any probative value as it is uncorroborated by other evidence and that it is merely hearsay, having come from a source, the Chief Engineer, who did not have any personal knowledge of the events reported therein.    The Labor Arbiter ruled that the charges against respondent are bare allegations, unsupported by corroborating evidence.  The Labor Arbiter stated that if respondent indeed committed the alleged infractions, then these should have, at the very least, been entered into the seaman’s book, or that a copy of the vessel’s logbook presented to prove the same.[10]  The Labor Arbiter’s findings were sustained by the NLRC.[11]             The CA upheld these findings, succinctly stating as follows: