6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly submitted the report to Captain Buton, the latter allegedly smelled a faint odor of whisky and asked respondent if he had been drinking, to which respondent truthfully replied that he drank a little whisky and was willing to take an alcohol test. Respondent claimed that Captain Buton shrugged off his offer to take an alcohol test; but as soon as he left respondent, Captain Buton made a logbook entry dated September 7, 2010, recommending respondent's immediate replacement.[11] For their part, petitioners averred that respondent was dismissed for just cause. The Free Lady Crew Behavior Report[12] (Crew Behavior Report) dated September 8, 2010 prepared by Captain Buton showed that respondent was grossly negligent as he failed to observe the safety precautions during the mooring and unmooring operations; displayed arrogance towards his co-employees on board; and was caught intoxicated, in violation of the company policies, instructions, and stipulations of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) contract. Thus, fearing that the safety of the vessel and/or crew may be at risk with the continued presence of respondent, petitioners were constrained to ask that respondent be relieved invoking Section 33 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).[13] The Labor Arbiter's Ruling In a Decision[14] dated January 31, 2011, the Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed respondent's complaint for lack of merit. The LA found that petitioners had discharged the burden to prove the existence of just cause for respondent's termination with the submission of the Crew Behavior Report duly attested by three officers reflecting respondent's unjustified failure to perform his duties and adhere to company policy against intoxication.[15] The LA also ruled that the petitioners were justified in not furnishing respondent a notice of dismissal considering that there was a clear and existing danger to the safety of the crew and the vessel.[16] Aggrieved, respondent appealed to the NLRC. [17] The NLRC Ruling On September 15, 2011, the NLRC rendered a Decision,[18] the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated December 21, 2010 is MODIFIED to the effect that nominal damages is awarded in complainant's favor in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). SO ORDERED.[19] While the NLRC affirmed the existence of just cause in terminating respondent's employment,[20] it found petitioners remiss in their duty to afford respondent the requisite notice and hearing prior to his dismissal.[21] According to the NLRC, the issuance of a notice and the observance of a hearing would have been prudent as it was disputable whether respondent posed a clear and imminent danger to the safety of elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63428 2/11