Arbiters ruling.[9] It dismissed the complaint on the ground that the petitioner had been declared fit to resume sea duty and was not entitled to any disability benefit. By resolution, the NLRC denied the petitioners motion for reconsideration.[10]   The petitioner thereafter sought relief from the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The CA dismissed the petition in a Decision promulgated on March 14, 2005,[11] and likewise denied the petitioners motion for reconsideration.[12] Hence, the present petition.   THE PETITION   The petitioner contends that the CA erred in denying him disability benefits contrary to existing jurisprudence, particularly the ruling of this Court in Crystal Shipping Inc., A/S Stein Line Bergen v. Deo P. Natividad,[13] and, in strictly interpreting the POEA Standard Employment Contract and the CBA between the parties on the matter of who determines a seafarers disability.   The petitioner particularly questions the CA decision for giving credit to the certification by the company-designated physician, Dr. Robert Lim, that declared him fit to work.[14] On the assumption that he was indeed fit to work, he submits that he should have been declared to be under permanent total disability because the fit-to-work declaration was made more than 120 days after he suffered his disability.   The petitioner laments that the CA accorded much weight to the companydesignated physicians declaration that he was fit to work.[15] He considers this a strict and parochial interpretation of the POEA Standard Employment Contract and the CBA. While these documents provide that it is the company doctor who must certify a seafarer as permanently unfit for further sea service, this literal interpretation, to the petitioner, is absurd and contrary to public policy; its effect is to deny and deprive the ailing seaman of his basic right to seek immediate attention from any competent physician. He invokes in this regard our ruling