petitioners failed to make up for the weakness of the evidence upon which they confidently anchored the merits of their case.   Likewise, the belated submission of the report by Villegas, long after the incidents referred to had taken place and after the complaint had been lodged by private  respondents,  weighs  heavily  against its credibility. Petitioners did not show any convincing reason why said report was only accomplished on September 22, 1989.  They merely argued that as in criminal cases, the witness is usually reluctant  to  report  an  incident.   At  any  rate,  with  present technology, a ship out at sea is not so isolated that its captain cannot instantly communicate with its office.  It would appear that the report, filed several months later, is but an afterthought.   Therefore, the CA was correct in affirming the findings and conclusions of both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.             Petitioner maintains that it complied with the requisites of procedural due process.  According to petitioner, respondent was constantly reprimanded and rebuked for his acts.  Petitioner also contends that the ship’s Master is allowed  to dismiss an erring seafarer without hearing under Section 17, paragraph D of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Standard Employment Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board OceanGoing Vessels.  Paragraph D, Section 17, however, is not applicable in respondent’s case.    Section 17 sets forth the disciplinary procedures against erring seafarers, to wit:   Section 17.  DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES   The Master shall comply with the following disciplinary procedures against an erring seafarer:   A.   The Master shall furnish the seafarer with a written notice containing the following:   1.     Grounds for the charges as listed in Section 31 of this Contract.