RESOLUTION G.R. No. 214334 November 17, 2014 6 a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment of the company-designated physician, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both parties. 14 However, neither parties availed of the remedy. We hold that Repizo is not entitled to total disability benefits for his failure to establish by substantial evidence that he is entitled thereto. The Court of Appeals thus did not err in sustaining the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter which denied the grant of permanent and total disability benefits to the Repizo. The opinion of Dr. Garduce that Repizo is not fit to work cannot bind the Court in light of the contrary opinion of the companydesignated physician. Aside from the medical certificate issued by Dr. Garduce, Repizo failed to adduce additional evidence to convince reasonable mind that he suffered from permanent disability rendering him unfit to render productive work in accordance with his skill and training. Not only that, Repizo likewise failed to show that there is a reasonable connection between his work as an engine fitter and his health problems. Repizo must prove, by substantial evidence, reasonable work-connection, if not direct causal relationship between his ailment and his working conditions, and by substantial evidence, we mean, such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 15 While it is true labor contracts are impressed with public interest and the provisions of the POEA-SEC must be construed fairly, reasonably and liberally in favor of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going vessels, we should be mindful that justice is in every case for the deserving to be dispensed with in light of established facts, the applicable law, and existingjurisprudence. 16 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED. - over- 20 14 15 16 Francisco v. Bahia Shipping Services, Inc., G.R. No. 190545, 22 November 2010, 635 SCRA 660, 666. Orate v. Court ofAppeals, 447 Phil. 654, 665 (2003). Klaveness Maritime Agenc,y, Inc. v. Ben~ftciaries C?f the late Second Officer Anthony S. Alias, 566 Phil. 579, 589-590 (2008).