RESOLUTION G.R. No. 214334 November 17, 2014 5 The ultimate question that needs to be addressed in the case at bar is whether or not Repizo, under the circumstances, is entitled to disability benefits. We rule in the negative. Factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies that have acquired expertise are generally accorded respect and even finality, if they are supported by substantial evidence. 11 In this case, we find no compelling reason to depart from the ruling of the Labor Arbiter as affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals. We quote here with approval the disquisition of the appellate court: First. Petitioner refers to renal colic as: (1) the illness which he incurred or suffered during the effectivity of his employment contract; (2) for which he claims to have been medically repatriated; (3) the illness that rendered him unfit to resume work; and (4) for which he seeks compensation. But it should be stressed that renal colic is entirely different from the illness (mild degenerative changes of the lumbar spine with mild L3-L4 and L4-L5 disc protrusion) for which the petitioner was declared unfit to work by his own physician, Dr. Garduce. xx xx Second. Against the company-designated physician's declaration that he had been declared fit to resume his duties after being cleared from renal colic, petitioner presented the medical report of Dr. Garduce, who declared him to have sustained a disability of Grade 3 for another ailment, a degenerative disc disease. Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements that it is the company-designated physician who is . entrusted with the task of assessing the seaman's disability, whether total or partial, due to either injury or illness, during the term of the latter's employment. It is his findings an4 evaluations which should form the basis of seafarer's disability claim. Petitioner is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits for his failure to refute the company-designated physician's findings that: (1) his illness was not work-related; and (2) he is fit to resume sea duties. 12 A seaman is a contractual and not a regular employee. His employment is contractually fixed for a certain period of time and is governed by the POEA-SEC. It says that under the said contract, it is the company designated physician who must proclaim that the seaman suffered a permanent disability, whether total or partial, due to either injury or illness, during the term of the latter's employment. 13 If II 12 13 Rambuyon v. Fiesta Brands, Inc., 514 Phil. 325, 334 (2005). Rollo, pp. 27-28. Panganiban v. Tara Trading Shipmanagement, Inc., G.R. No. 187032, 18 October 2010, 633 SCRA 353, 367-368. - over- 20 .H{·\' •L