Court is left with no choice but to deny his petition, lest an injustice be caused to the employer. Otherwise stated, while it is true that labor contracts are impressed with public interest and the provisions of the POEA SEC must be construed logically and liberally in favor of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going vessels, still the rule is that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed with in the light of established facts, the applicable law, and existing jurisprudence.32[32]   Lastly, it appears premature at this time to consider petitioner’s disability as permanent and total because the severity of his ailment has not been established with finality to render him already incapable of performing the work of a seafarer. In fact, the medical expert termed his condition as brief psychotic disorder. The Court also takes note, as the CA correctly did, that petitioner did not finish his treatment with the company-designated physician, hence, there is no final evaluation yet on petitioner.   All told, no reversible error was committed by the CA in rendering the assailed Decision and issuing the questioned Resolution.   WHEREFORE, the October 29, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals and its March 4, 2009 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 104343, are AFFIRMED.   32[32] Supra note 1.