cross-examination by OSCI. Moreover, it noted that the reliance by the LA on the certificates of Dr. Lim and Dr. Varwig is misplaced, for the disability ratings indicated therein do not appear to be final for they were merely suggested ones. Besides, it pointed out that the records show that Bastol was still under treatment and being re-evaluated by Dr. Lim when the purported certificate was issued by Dr. Lim on June 26, 1997. It concluded that the purpose for which the case was remanded had not been served and the true state of Bastol’s health not adequately established. In fine, it ruled that even if Bastol’s disability has been determined with certainty, still it will not serve to indemnify Bastol for his violation of the SEC when he prematurely sought the medical help of Dr. Vicaldo, emphasizing that the 1994 revised SEC is clear in that it is only the company-designated physician who could declare the fitness of the seafarer to work; or establish the degree of his disability.   Undaunted, Bastol went to the CA questioning the reversal of Labor Arbiter Lustria’s Decision via a Petition36[36] for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 100090.   The Ruling of the Court of Appeals   On August 12, 2008, the appellate court rendered the assailed Decision reversing the July 31, 2006 Decision and May 30, 2007 Resolution of the NLRC, 36[36] Id. at 152-168, dated August 27, 2007.