event that the appellate court affirms the NLRC award.   Respecting the compensability of respondent’s illness, petitioner reiterates that the labor tribunals erred in finding that he contracted the illness during his employment aboard M/V Spring Dragon and the same was aggravated during his stint aboard Tama Star for the following reasons: (a) the evidence adduced by respondent consisted only of medical reports during his treatment for kidney stones in 2001, for which he stated that he had been cured; (b) respondent was able to finish his nine-month contract aboard Tama Star without any medical complaints; (c) he filed his complaint two years after the expiration his contract; (d) he did not submit to medical examination upon repatriation nor did he complain of any illness; (e) the medical certificates issued by Dr. Entero-Lim and Dr. Abarquez were for a one-time consultation on August 11, 2005 – two years after his contract ended and two weeks after he had filed his complaint (subject of the present case) before the Labor Arbiter; and (f) his job as an Able Seaman was not sedentary in nature to preclude urination failure to accomplish which would lead to kidney stones.   At the core of the controversy are petitioner’s prayers – first, a reexamination of the evidence already passed upon by the labor tribunals and second, upholding of the validity of the parties’ agreement as embodied in the “Conditional Satisfaction of Judgment.”