11/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly evidence. The contents of the February 1, 2008 facsimile message are reproduced as follows: xxxx THE 2ND ENGINEER MR. CUYOS CONSTANTINO SINCE HE CAME ON BOARD THE MV CROWN PRINCESS HE STARTED CREATING PROBLEMS AGAINST THE CHIEF ENGINEER OF THE SHIP MR. VERA FRANCISCO. AS THE CHIEF ENGINEER REPORTED TO ME THE 2nd ENGINEER MR. CUYOS CONSTANTINO WAS NOT AGREEING IN THE CHIEF ENGINEER[']S INSTRUCTIONS AND WHEN THE CHIEF ENGINEER WAS POINTING OUT THE INCIDENT MR. CUYOS [CONSTATINO] STARTED TO LOOK FOR A FIGHT. BEFORE ARRIVAL IN USA THE CHIEF ENGINEER OF THE SHIP[,] MR. VERAM TALKED WITH HIS AGENCY IN MANILA AND HE HAD EXPLAINED EVERYTHING TO HIS AGENCY AND THEY HAVE AGREED TO CHANGE THE 2ND ENGINEER SOONEST POSSIBLE. (Emphasis supplied) MY OPINION IS THE 2ND ENGINEER MR. CUYOS CONSTANTINO TO BE CHANGED THE SOONEST POSSIBLE FOR THE GOOD OF THE SHIP AND TO AVOID THE WORST.[22] From the aforesaid transmission, the following could be deduced: First, Capt Kolidas' knowledge regarding the incident is completely onesided. He did not conduct any investigation to ascertain the truthfulness and veracity of Vera's accusations against Constantino. He never bothered getting Constantino's side of the story. He reported the incident as relayed to him by Vera. Thus, he could not have reasonably determined if there is indeed clear danger to the crew or to the vessel. Second, Capt. Kolidas did not order the dismissal of Constantino. While Capt. Kolidas stated that he was of the opinion that Constantino must be replaced, his opinion on the matter is no longer relevant considering that Constantino's dismissal was already a done deal. From Capt. Kolidas' facsimile transmission, it is evident that the decision to dismiss Constantino was made by Vera and the petitioners. Clearly, the provisions of Section 17(D) of the POEA-SEC are inapplicable in this case. Likewise, the unsigned facsimile message dated February 9, 2008, and the attached decklog extract bearing the same date are also insufficient to establish the alleged insubordination and gross misconduct by Constantino. The unsigned February 9, 2008 transmission merely states that attached to it is the decklog extract concerning Constantino's behavior on certain dates. On the other hand, the decklog extract contains a short type-written narration of the alleged acts of insubordination and serious misconduct committed by Constantino on January 2, 2008 and January 17, 2008. In Abacast Shipping and Management Agency, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission (Abacast),[23] the Court stressed that the ship's logbook is a respectable record that can be relied upon to determine the veracity of the charges filed and the https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65452 7/14