perform the duty enjoined or to act at all, in contemplation of law. The judgment must be rendered in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal hostility.[15]   Abuse of discretion does not necessarily follow in cases where the NLRC reverses a labor arbiters decision. The mere variance in evidentiary assessment between the labor arbiter and the NLRC does not automatically call for a full review of the facts by this Court. The decision of the NLRC, so long as it has substantial support from the records, deserves respect from this Court.[16]   The appellate courts decision, for its part, is clear:   The NLRC could hardly be accused of misappreciating the facts of the case, as it is undisputed that the private respondent sustained his injury while serving on board the M/V Castor belonging to petitioner Seagiant Management Co., Ltd., and that the said injury was compensable. Nor could the NLRC be accused of misapprehending the extent of the private respondents injury as in making its conclusions, the NLRC referred to matters of evidence appearing on record, after using its own reasoning and cognitive powers. We see that the NLRC gave weight to the observations of Dr. Norberto Meriales that the private respondent, whether operated on or not, will not be able to perform or be hired for his previous work as a seaman, and no grave abuse of discretion could be gleaned from such fact. The NLRC also relied on the observations of Dr. Rafael Bundoc of the PGH, which point out that even if private respondent is allowed surgeries to lessen his pain, he will never be able to attain the level of activity that he could perform as a seaman.   The NLRC also did not misconstrue or misapply the legal principles it had cited in resolving the appeal before it. It is in accord with judicious reasoning for the NLRC to cite the rule that a claimants disability should not be understood solely on its medical significance, but also on the real and actual effects of the injury to the claimants right and opportunity to perform work and earn a living. In fine, private respondents injury rendered him incapable of performing the same work or work of a similar nature as he was trained or accustomed to. It is only just that the remuneration paid to him at least approximates his loss.