4/29/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Cedros, Mexico, the vessel suddenly listed too much at the bow. At that
particular time both the master and the chief mate went on shore leave
together, which under maritime standard was prohibited. To avoid any
conflict, he chose to ignore the unbecoming conduct of the senior officers of
the vessel.
On or about March 13, 2002, the vessel berthed at a port in Japan to
discharge its cargo. Thereafter, it sailed to the U.S.A. While the vessel was
still at sea, the master required [Tangga-an] and the rest of the Filipino
Engineer Officers to report to his office where they were informed that they
would be repatriated on account of the delay in the cargo discharging in
Japan, which was principally a duty belonging to the deck officers. He
imputed the delay to the non-readiness of the turbo generator and the
inoperation of the boom, since the turbo generator had been prepared and
synchronized for 3.5 hours or even before the vessel arrived in Japan.
Moreover, upon checking the boom, they found the same [sic] operational.
Upon verification, they found out that when the vessel berthed in Japan, the
cargo hold was not immediately opened and the deck officers concerned did
not prepare the stock. Moreover, while cargo discharging was ongoing, both
the master and the chief mate again went on shore leave together at 4:00 in
the afternoon and returned to the vessel only after midnight. To save face,
they harped on the Engine Department for their mistake. [Tangga-an] and
the other Engineering [O]fficers were ordered to disembark from the vessel
on April 2, 2002 and thereafter repatriated. Thence, the complaint.
[Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., Universe Tankship Delaware LLC, and
Carlos C. Salinas] on the other hand, contended that sometime on [sic]
March 2002, during a test of the cargo discharging conveyor system,
[Tangga-an] and his assistant engineers failed to start the generator that
supplied power to the conveyor. They spent 3 hours trying to start the
generator but failed. It was only the third assistant engineer who previously
served in the same vessel who was able to turn on the generator. When the
master tried to call the engine room to find out the problem, [Tangga-an]
did not answer and merely hang [sic] up. The master proceeded to the
engine room to find out the problem by [sic] [Tangga-an] and his assistant
engineers were running around trying to appear [busy].
At another time, during a cargo discharging operation requiring the use of a
generator system and the conveyor boom, [Tangga-an] was nowhere to be
found. Apparently, he went on shore leave resulting in a delay of 2 hours
because the machine could not be operated well. Both incidents were
recorded in the official logbook. Due to the delay, protests were filed by the
charter [sic]. The master required [Tangga-an] to submit a written
explanation to which he did but blamed the captain and the chief officer. He
failed to explain why he did not personally supervise the operation of the
generator system and the conveyor boom during the cargo discharging
operations.
His explanation not having been found satisfactory,
[respondents] decided to terminate [Tangga-an’s] services. Thus, a notice
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55699
2/12