6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Likewise, in Skippers United Pacific, Inc. v. NLRC,[68] the Court ruled that the lone evidence offered by the employer to justify the seafarer’s dismissal, i.e., the telexed Chief Engineer’s Report which contained the causes for said dismissal, did not suffice to discharge the onus required of the employer to show that the termination of an employee’s service was valid.[69] The same doctrine was enunciated in Pacific Maritime Services, Inc. v. Ranay,[70] where the Court held that the telefax transmission purportedly executed and signed by a person on board the vessel is insufficient evidence to prove the commission of the acts constituting the grounds for the dismissal of two seafarers, being uncorroborated evidence.[71] As in this case, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to present other substantial evidence to bolster their claim that Avestruz committed acts that constitute insubordination as would warrant his dismissal. At the least, they could have offered in evidence entries in the ship’s official logbook showing the infractions or acts of insubordination purportedly committed by Avestruz, the ship’s logbook being the official repository of the day-to-day transactions and occurrences on board the vessel.[72] Having failed to do so, their position that Avestruz was lawfully dismissed cannot be sustained. Similarly, the Court affirms the finding of the CA that Avestruz was not accorded procedural due process, there being no compliance with the provisions of Section 17 of the POEA-SEC as above-cited, which requires the “two-notice rule.” As explained in Skippers Pacific, Inc. v. Mira:[73] An erring seaman is given a written notice of the charge against him and is afforded an opportunity to explain or defend himself. Should sanctions be imposed, then a written notice of penalty and the reasons for it shall be furnished the erring seafarer. It is only in the exceptional case of clear and existing danger to the safety of the crew or vessel that the required notices are dispensed with; but just the same, a complete report should be sent to the manning agency, supported by substantial evidence of the findings.[74] In this case, there is dearth of evidence to show that Avestruz had been given a written notice of the charge against him, or that he was given the opportunity to explain or defend himself. The statement[75] given by Captain Woodward requiring him to explain in writing the events that transpired at the galley in the morning of June 22, 2011 hardly qualifies as a written notice of the charge against him, nor was it an opportunity for Avestruz to explain or defend himself. While Captain Woodward claimed in his email[76] that he conducted a “disciplinary hearing” informing Avestruz of his inefficiency, no evidence was presented to support the same. Neither was Avestruz given a written notice of penalty and the reasons for its imposition. Instead, Captain Woodward verbally informed him that he was dismissed from service and would be disembarked from the vessel. It bears stressing that only in elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/59563 7/13