The twin-notice rule, although impractical cannot be dispensed with.

The law and jurisprudence are clear that the only exception to the twin-notice rule would be in cases
wherein there is a clear and existing danger to the ship. Absent such instance of clear and existing danger,
under section 17 of the POEA-SEC; we as the manning agency must ensure that the seafarer was given
the proper notice, duly documented in the ships logbook and the opportunity to refute such charges.

How can we prevent these types of cases from occurring in the future?

The penalty provided for in the rules for desertion is by itself already a source of deterrence for other
seafarers to do this action. POEA Memorandum Circular No. 010-10, section 33 provides that:

Desertion or attempting to desert-

Dismissal and to pay cost of repatriation and cost of his
replacement,
1st offense: Delisting

There is really no hard and fast rule that can dissuade someone from engaging in desertion but if they are
apprised of how grave the consequences are then maybe they would hesitate from doing so.

What message do the active seafarers get out of this incident? What are the consequences?

Generally speaking, morale should not be an issue especially if the ship and its management are fair and
there are not issues with renumeration. It is only on those rare occasions wherein a specific crewman is
suffering through a particular issue that may trigger him to desert but statistically speaking the instance
is an outlier.

The consequences would show if we are to let this incident slide with no repercussions on the part of the
seafarer. I suggest a harder stance on desertion be taken.

PTC’s process to protect the principal from the risks of desertion and other analogous cases?

As stated above, the penalty by itself is already a good deterrent but only insofar as the crew is informed
of such penalty and that we are willing to follow through with enforcement. I acknowledge that the
human condition must always be taken into consideration when dealing with issues such as this but such
must be weighed with the interest of the greater majority who may be indirectly affected by the actions of
one person.