Our Oncologist examined the patient today who opines that patient has responded well after undergoing 6 sessions of chemotherapy. His present state of remission is supported by further disease regression in his latest CT Scan of the abdomen. Blood chemistry result of his createnineand lactate dehydrogenase levels are within normal limits. Check-up from year to year was suggested to evaluate periodically his health condition. Since Mr. Cedol is noted asymptomatic he is therefore cleared from Oncology standpoint.   After thorough evaluation by our specialists, Mr. Cedol is now deemed fit to resume sea duties.   FINAL DIAGNOSIS:   Recurrent Lymphoma, in complete remission.[29]                                   As previously discussed, it is the company-designated physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing the seaman’s disability. Since Dr. OngSalvador deemed the respondent as fit to resume sea duties, then such declaration should be given credence, considering the amount of time and effort she gave to monitoring and treating the respondent’s condition.[30] It bears emphasizing that the respondent has been under the care and supervision of Dr. Ong-Salvador since his repatriation in February 2005 and no contrary medical evidence exists on record disputing Dr. Ong-Salvador’s medical conclusions.  The extensive medical attention she has given the respondent undeniably enabled her to acquire familiarity and detailed knowledge of the latter’s medical condition. We cannot help but note that the Medical Progress Report was replete with details justifying its “fit to work” conclusion. In addition, the respondent did not contest the findings contained in this Medical Progress Report; neither did he seek the opinion of other doctors.   We emphasize that the constitutional policy to provide full protection to labor is not meant to be a sword to oppress employers.  The commitment of this Court to the cause of labor does not prevent us from sustaining the employer when it is in the right.[31] We should always be mindful that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed with in the light of established facts, the applicable law, and existing jurisprudence.[32]   In sum, we hold that the respondent 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 was fit to resume sea duties. The CA thus erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the