Nevertheless, this Court deems it proper to relax procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice[26] in view of the partial merit of petitioners appeal before the NLRC.   Before the NLRC petitioners raised the following issues:   I   WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT-APPELLEE IS ENTITLED TO DISABILITY BENEFITS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE COMPANYDESIGNATED PHYSICIAN HAD ASSESSED HIM AS FIT TO RESUME SEA DUTIES.   II   WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT-APPELLEE IS ENTITLED TO DISABILITY BENEFITS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS ILLNESS OR INJURY IS NOT WORK-RELATED.   III   WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT-APPELLEE IS ENTITLED TO DISABILITY BENEFITS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS ILLNESS OR INJURY WAS NOT CAUSED BY AN ACCIDENT.   IV   WHETHER COMPLAINANT-APPELLEE IS ENTITLED TO [27] ATTORNEYS FEES.     Respecting petitioners argument that a company-designated physician declared respondent fit to resume sea duties, the right of a seafarer to seek a second opinion is recognized by the POEA Standard Employment Contract of 2000, the CBA governing the relationship between petitioners and respondent, and jurisprudence.   Section 20 (B) (3) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract of 2000 provides:   SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY AND ILLNESS   The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers workrelated injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows: