Second, relying on and applying the principles enunciated in Remigio v. National Labor Relations Commission38[38] together with the application of Sec. 20 in relation to Secs. 30 and 30-A of the SEC, the appellate court appreciated and found total and permanent disability of Bastol, considering the undisputed fact that he could not pursue his usual work as a seaman for a period of more than 120 days. Moreover, it noted that no less than four doctors—Dr. Peralta, Dr. Lim, Dr. Varwig and Dr. Vicaldo—found Bastol to be suffering from a heart ailment which prevented him from being employed at his usual job as a seafarer or seaman.   Third, the CA viewed no violation of Sec. 20, B, 3 of the SEC, for said proviso in its third paragraph does not prohibit a second medical opinion, but, in fact, provides for the seafarer the right to seek a second opinion and even a third opinion in cases where the seafarer’s doctor disagrees with the assessment of the company-designated doctor. Thus, the CA ruled that the NLRC gravely erred in construing the proviso that it is only the company-designated physician who could declare the fitness of the seafarer to work or establish the degree of his disability. In fine, the CA pointed out that the SEC does not serve to be a limitation but is a guarantee of protection to overseas contract workers and must, therefore, be construed and applied fairly, reasonably and liberally in favor of and for the benefit of seamen and their dependents.   38[38] G.R. No. 159887, April 12, 2006, 487 SCRA 190.