6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly To amount to a valid dismissal, an erring seafarer must be handed a written notice of the charge against him and must be given the opportunity to explain himself unless of course there is a clear and existing danger against the safety of, the crew or the vessel in which case notice may be dispensed with.[35] Needless to say, this is not the situation here. Section 17 of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On Board Ocean-Going Vessels (Disciplinary Measures) specifically provides that before an erring seafarer can be validly dismissed, he must be given by the master of the vessel a written notice stating the charge or charges against him; and, the date, time and place for a formal investigation of such charge. Thereafter, an investigation or hearing, duly documented and entered in the ship's logbook, must be conducted to give the seaman the opportunity to explain or defend himself. If found guilty, the seaman shall be given a written notice of the penalty meted out against him. with the specific reasons for the penalty so imposed. "Dismissal for just cause may be affected by the Master without furnishing the seafarer with a notice of dismissal if there is a clear and existing danger to the safety of the crew or the vessel."[36] In this case, no hearing was conducted respecting respondent's alleged incompetence and poor performance, and granting him opportunity to present countervailing evidence to disprove the charge against him. There was also no showing of imminent danger to the crew or the vessel, so that the required notice may be dispensed with. True, as stated elsewhere, the above-mentioned Report could somehow pass as a notice of respondent's dismissal. Nevertheless, as earlier discussed, the allegations in this Report do not permit the conclusion that respondent was guilty of poor performance and incompetence that would amount to gross and habitual neglect of duties. Lastly, the quitclaim that respondent executed did not bar him from filing a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioners. Said quitclaim was invalid because it did not fully or completely give or grant respondent what was due him as a matter of law and justice. It only covered respondent's accrued leave credits and his 3-day travel pay. Such payment involved only a part or portion of the amount of money actually and justly due him under the law; it was not a full and complete satisfaction of what is due him under the law.[37] In view thereof, we find that the CA did not err in setting aside the Decision of the NLRC and in reinstating that of the LA, which found respondent to have been illegally dismissed and entitled to his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract and to attorney's fees of 10% of the total award.[38] WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated July 29, 2011 and Resolution dated January 2, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 112079 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61248 7/10