6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly So, if he is a safety cautious he knows in advance what will be the consequences. You know I was surprised of his expressions after the O/S injured it seems nothing happened. Secondly, I observed him that he did not obey the company policies and instructions and also the stipulations stated in POEA contract. You know last September 07, 2010 at 2300, I caught him drinking alcohol onboard. On September 07, 2010 while vessel discharging in Vizag when the third officer called him because there was a ship's damage caused by the stevedore when he arrived in the damaged area he started to argue to the foreman and the agent. The agent informed me that they could not deal the chief officer properly because he intoxicated. When I called the Chief Officer in my office together with the agent he came up in my office barefooted. I asked him if he is intoxicated and he confirmed that truly he is intoxicated. You know I did to discuss the company policies all the time when there is new on signers onboard but it seems he did not adhere the company policy so since he did not follow the company policy therefore he is breaching the POEA contract that he is binding for. So, I recommend him to be repatriated soonest as possible because if this guy will stay onboard the safety of the crew specially those assigned forward will be compromised to avoid problems in the future. xxxx (Sgd.) Capt. Edgar Prepared A. Buton by: Master M.V Free Lady (Sgd.) Testified 3/O Joelon C. by: Grota (Sgd.) A/B Jeffrey O. Minoza (Sgd.) Bsn Jose C. Rizo (Sgd.) A/B John Carlo Sablas[44] The Court finds the foregoing Crew Behavior Report sorely inadequate in meeting the required quantum of proof to discharge petitioners' burden. For one, the statements contained therein were uncorroborated and self-serving. No other evidence was presented to support the statements of the Captain. In Skippers United Pacific, Inc. v. NLRC,[45] the Court did not give weight and credence to the uncorroborated Chief Engineer's Report which purportedly specified the causes for the seafarer's dismissal. In Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc. v. Avestruz,[46] the Court likewise disregarded the uncorroborated and self-serving electronic mails of the ship captain as proof of the seafarer's supposed neglect of duty and perverse and wrongful attitude.[47] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63428 5/11