6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Notably, in this case, while the report was signed by four (4) crew members, the statements contained therein were, as correctly observed by the CA, based on acts witnessed only by Captain Buton. According to Captain Buton, a crew was injured when respondent failed to observe safety precautions in the mooring and unmooring operations. He also mentioned that an agent informed him that respondent was hard to deal with because of intoxication. Considering however that there were no affidavits submitted of either the injured seaman or the concerned agent to corroborate the Captain's statements, there can be no basis for the Court to conclude that there was truth to Captain Buton's accusations. The Court further finds that there exists no just or valid cause for respondent's dismissal. Incompetence or inefficiency, as a ground for dismissal, is understood to mean the 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.[48] Neglect of duty, on the other hand, must be both gross and habitual.[49] Gross negligence implies a lack of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the total absence of care in the performance of duties,[50] not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference insofar as other persons may be affected.[51] Habitual neglect involves repeated failure to perform duties for a certain period of time, depending upon the circumstances, and not mere failure to perform duties in a single or isolated instance.[52] As again aptly observed by the CA, petitioners failed to show that respondent willfully or deliberately caused the alleged accident during the mooring operations or that respondent repeatedly committed mistakes or repeatedly failed to perform his duties. [53] The single unverified incident on respondent's supposed negligence is surely insufficient to warrant a finding of just cause for termination. As regards the charge of intoxication, Section 33(6) of the POEA SEC provides that drunkenness must be committed while on duty to merit dismissal from employment. Here, respondent was admittedly off duty when he was allegedly caught by the master drinking on board.[54] The penalty of dismissal from employment was therefore unwarranted. Respondent was not accorded due process. The lack of just or valid cause of respondent's dismissal was further exacerbated by petitioners' failure to afford respondent procedural due process. Section 17 of the POEA-SEC provides: 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. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63428 6/11