Regular intake of anti-hypertensive medications is advised for strict compliance so that hypertension is controlled to prevent complications. Given the earlier adverted consideration on such want of credence on complainants part as gleaned from his assertions which were easily controverted by evidence on record, such notable conjectural tenor on the part of complainants private physician as to the possible effects of his alleged hypertensive condition cannot be taken as sufficient basis to overcome the correctness of the medical findings arrived at by Dr. Alegre, not to mention that complainant was examined by his chosen physician only once. Aside from his alleged hypertensive condition which could be addressed to by oral medication, there exists no evidence that there is a direct causal connection between said alleged hypertensive condition and a condition of permanent and total disability being claimed by the complainant. Accordingly, the claim must be denied.   On June 23, 2006, the NLRC rendered a decision reversing that of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed respondents complaint for lack of merit. The dispositive portion of the NLRC decision reads:   WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision under review is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another entered,DISMISSING the complaint for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.   In arriving at such a disposition, the NLRC held:   Weighty considerations anchored on principles governing contracts and jurisprudence in support thereof find the complainant to observe its commitments under the POEA Standard Employment Contract (Article 1159, Civil Code of the Philippines). Said contract of employment specifically mentions that fitness to work or the degree of disability of a seafarer is within the competence of a company designated physician to establish (Section 20 (b), No. 2, paragraph 2 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract). Stated otherwise, the seaman is bound by the declaration of the company designated physician concerning his physical condition in relation to his work. Given this situation, the burden of proof rests upon him in order to establish the disability alleged in such findings. Whether complainant was successful in countering the declaration of fitness to work by the company designated physician, is a matter that merits serious concern.   Aggrieved, respondent elevated the matter to the CA via petition for certiorari.