Sadagnot vs.

Reinier Pacific
August 8, 2007| Carpio, J. | Entries in the Course of Business
PETITIONER: Crislyndon T. Sadagnot
RESPONDENT: Reinier Pacific International Shipping Inc., and Neptune Management Services, PTE., Ltd. of Singapore
SUMMARY: Sadagnot, employed by the Reinier Pacific as Third Officer, was repatriated after he refused to follow the Masters
order to perform deck work. As evidence, the ships logbook was presented. Sadagnot questioned why the CA gave more credence
to the logbook rather than the testimonies of his co-workers.
DOCTRINE: A ships logbook is the official record of a ships voyage which its captain is obligated by law to keep. It is where
the captain records the decision he has adopted, a summary of the performance of the vessel, and other daily events. The entries
made in the logbook by a person performing a duty required by law are prima facie evidence of the facts stated in the log book.

FACTS: 1. Reinier Pacific International Shipping and its

foreign principal, Neptune Ship Management Services, hired
Crislyndon T. Sadagnot as Third Officer of MV Baotrans.
The contract was for 10 months with a basic salary of
US$650.
2. While on board the vessel, Sadagnot was ordered to
perform hatch stripping, a deck work. He refused to follow
the order on the ground that it was not related to his duties as
Third Officer, and that while such order was issued, he was
on watch standing duty and doing nautical publications.
3. Sadagnot alleged that because of his refusal to obey the
order, the Master made several negative reports against him.
4. Reiner Pacific repatriated Sadagnot to the Philippines.
5. Upon arrival in the Philippines, Sadagnot executed a
release document in favor of Reinier Pacific and Neptune
Ship Management, stating that he had received all the
amounts due to him, and that he has no cause of action
against his employer.
6. Nonetheless, Sadagnot filed an action for dismissal, nonpayment of allotment, termination pay, damages, and
attorneys fees against Reinier Pacific and Neptune Ship. He
alleged that he was prematurely repatriated without being
given the opportunity to avail of the companys grievance
procedure.
7. Labor Arbiter: Ruled in favor of Sadagnot. NLRC
reversed LA, and just ordered the employers to indemnify
Sadagnot P10,000 for non-observance of due process.
8. CA: Affirmed NLRC decision. The act of not following
the Masters order was serious misconduct/willful
disobedience under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
ISSUES: 1. W/N CA erred in adopting the logbook entry as
evidence of Sadagnots misconduct - NO.
2. W/N Sadagnot was validly dismissed from employment YES.
3. W/N there is legal basis for the award of P10,000 to
Sadagnot - YES.

HELD: CA decision AFFIRMED, only modified amount

for indemnification.
RATIO: 1. Reinier Pacific and Neptune Ship alleged that
Sadagnots signature in the verification of the petition was
just a facsimile, and that because of this, the petition should
be dismissed outright. They also presented an undated
contract signed by Sadagnot for comparison.
The petition was filed on May 6, 2002. The Court assumed
that the contract must have been signed in August 1995.
There was a lapse of almost 7 years between the signing of
the 2 documents, and as such, there is no sufficient proof
that Sadagnots signature on the verification was forged.
2. Sadagnot argued that CA erred in giving credence to the
logbook entry instead of the joint statement of his
crewmates, attesting to the fact that there were 12 deck
crews on deck at the time who would be able to handle the
hatch stripping if they were ordered to do so.
A ships logbook is the official record of a ships voyage
which its captain is obligated by law to keep. It is where
the captain records the decision he has adopted, a
summary of the performance of the vessel, and other
daily events. The entries made in the logbook by a person
performing a duty required by law are prima facie
evidence of the facts stated in the log book.
In this case, there is no evidence that the Master fabricated
the entry. Nonetheless, Sadagnot has already admitted that
he did not obey the masters order.
3. Sadagnots duties clearly indicate that he shall carry out
duties assigned by the Master, and his disposition only
proved his determination to disobey the Master. The urgency
of the work to be done is within the sound discretion of the
Master, and is not for someone else, like Sadagnot, to
decide.
Willful disobedience has 2 requisites: (1) the conduct must
have been willful characterized by a wrongful and
perverse attitude, and (2) the order violated must have been
reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must
pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to
discharge.

It is evident that the Masters order was not unreasonable or

unlawful, and that he already admitted not following such
order. Therefore, Sadagnot was dismissed for a valid cause,
and is not entitled to any salary for the unexpired portion of
his employment contract.
4. The award was increased from P10,000 to P30,000. The
employer failed to satisfy the twin notice requirement in the
dismissal of employees.