On April 25, 2007, the CA rendered the herein challenged Decision setting aside the decision of the NLRC and reinstating that of the labor arbiter. The CA ratiocinated thus:   That the company-designated physician did declare that petitioner is fit to sea duty should not prejudice petitioners claim for disability benefits. In the first instance, it is well to note that there is doubt and question as to the accuracy of the declaration of the Dr. Alegres cleared to work resumption as seafarer. Such certification should not be taken as the only primary consideration, especially when there is contra finding by another doctor giving doubt to the findings of the company-designated physician. As held in the case of Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, opinions of petitioners doctor to this effect should not be given evidentiary weight as they are palpably selfserving and biased in favor of petitioners, and certainly could not be considered independent. The medical findings of Dr. Alegre, unsubstantiated by any other evidence, are suspect for being biased in favor of the private respondent. In the present case, petitioner has been rendered incapable of further pursuing his usual work because of his weakened bodily condition due to illness contracted during his employment. It is undisputed that petitioner had been under the employ of respondents since 1992 and had finished ten (10) contracts with them on board as second cook. While considering this long stint with the respondent, his non-redeployment more so puts in doubt the claim of respondent that petitioner was indeed fit to work. Moreover, it is well settled that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in claims for compensation and disability benefits. Petitioner having substantially established that he could not able to perform the same work as he used to before his repatriation, and was found both by his independent physician and Gleneagles Hospital in Singapore suffering from severe hypertension as well as other diagnosed illnesses which were contracted as a result of his exposure to the risks involved in the performance of his job, we find the NLRC to have acted in grave abuse of discretion in reversing and setting aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter awarding disability claims to petitioner. Petitioners are now before the Court principally contending that the CA committed reversible error when it upheld the findings of respondents private physician rather than the findings of the company-designated physician.   We grant the petition.   The standard employment contract for seafarers was formulated by the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) pursuant to its mandate under Executive Order No. 247 to "secure the best terms and conditions of employment of Filipino contract workers and ensure compliance therewith" and