4/1/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly reactive stories thru their letter. He didn't still follow to master instruction that's why help to nice preparing crew letter according to his say. [27] The fact that Flores acted as coordinator or liaison between the crew and the vessel's officers signifies that Flores did interact with the crew, and had the opportunity to sow discontent among them towards the shipmanagement. Flores' infractions, as mentioned in the letters, could not have been just pigments of the imagination of Capt. B.H. Mun and the other officers as Flores insinuated; they were reporting on Flores' actual transgressions while on board the vessel. Still on the probative value of the letters, Flores wondered why the agency did not present in evidence the vessel's logbook [28] -- the official records of a ship's voyage that the master is required by law to keep and where he records the decision/s he made during the voyage, including all happenings on board. [29] The existence of a logbook, however, does not at all preclude the admission and consideration of other accounts of what was happening on board the vessel, such as, in this instance, the shipmaster's report. In Abacast Shipping and Management Agency, Inc. v. NLRC, [30] the Court explained - The [logbook] is a respectable record that can be relied upon to authenticate the charges filed and the procedure taken against the employees prior to their dismissal. Curiously, however, no entry from such [logbook] was presented at all in this case. What was offered instead was the shipmaster's report, which was later claimed to be a collation of excerpts from such book. xxxx At that, even if the shipmaster's report were to be admitted and considered, a close reading thereof will show that the private respondents have not committed any act that would justify the termination of their services before the expiration of the contracts. While the shipmaster's report was not considered in Abacast Shipping, the reason behind the rejection was the Court's conclusion that the separated employees had not committed any act that would justify their dismissal, as their dismissal was based on mere apprehension. This situation does not obtain in Flores' case. As mentioned earlier, Capt. B.H. Mun's report made affirmative statements regarding Flores' infractions that led to his dismissal. These infractions involved not only instigating several crew members to rebel against the vessel's authorities and to disrespect their superiors, but also other transgressions that made him unfit to continue in employment. Even as he assailed the reports of Capt. B.H. Mun and the other officers as hearsay and self-serving, Flores failed to controvert the affirmative statements made in the reports. The reports were submitted on compulsory arbitration. He did not refute the charges, thus leaving them unrebutted. Capt. B.H. Mun's statements, corroborated by the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52684 7/10