The maritime employment contract is not valid as evidence in this case because it is a photocopy, and was given to the respondent in his capacity as shipper and not supplier and the name of the ship is not mentioned. There are no restrictions on the Trial Court to prove the case by hearing a specific quorum of witnesses. The authority of the Trial Court alone to hear and assess the witnesses' testimonies, to interpret the documents and reach a decision regarding the judgment. The contested judgment of the existence of a four month working relationship between the appellant ship supplier and the respondent in his capacity as a shipmaster based on the authority of the Trial Court in assessing the witnesses' testimonies is deemed reasonable and has proof in documents.