(c)                Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;   (d)               Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative; and   (e)                Other causes analogous to the foregoing.                 In the case before this Court, the ground relied upon by the petitioners in dismissing the respondents is incompetence. Although incompetence or inefficiency as a ground for a valid dismissal is not expressly written in Article 282 as one of the just causes in dismissing an employee,  this ground is considered as analogous to those enumerated under said article. Additionally, incompetence is a ground specifically provided for in Section H of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Standard Employment Contract[32] to validly dismiss an erring seaman.  Such incompetence or inefficiency is understood to mean failure to attain work goals or work quotas, either by failing to complete the same within the allotted reasonable period, or by producing unsatisfactory results. [33]   In proving the alleged incompetence of the respondents, the Labor Arbiter as well as the NLRC, based their findings on the telefax message,[34] logbook extracts, and the Master’s Statement Report.                 While going over the records of the case, this Court finds that the logbook extracts presented by the petitioners before the administrative bodies failed to specify the particular acts or omissions of the respondents which apparently displayed their alleged incompetence. Such details are vital in proving whether the respondents are indeed incompetent to perform their assigned duties and responsibilities.  While the logbook extracts presented by the petitioners dated 22 July 1998,[35] mentioned that respondent Maguadwas inexperienced because he did not operate E/R Machines satisfactorily, it did not particularly described therein the manner howMaguad operated the machine that would lead to the conclusion that he was inexperienced.  With regard to respondent Ciudadano, his alleged incompetence was stated in the logbook extracts dated 24 July 1998,[36] that he was unable to perform safety duties in spite of advices given to him.  Again, his alleged incompetence was not specifically stated.  Since a logbook contains entries of the daily events in the vessel, it is irregular that the act of the respondents showing