In its 13 July 2001 Decision, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition.   The Court of Appeals sustained the NLRC that the POEA-SEC governs the rights and obligations of the parties. The Court of Appeals rejected petitioners argument that Articles 191 and 192 of the Labor Code should apply to his case. The Court of Appeals ruled that Articles 191 and 192 of the Labor Code refer to Temporary and Permanent Total Disability Benefits that an employee may avail of pursuant to the Employees Compensation and State Insurance Fund, and petitioner is not covered under either.   The Court of Appeals ruled that a seafarer shall be granted the corresponding permanent partial or total disability benefits under Section 30-A of the POEA-SEC or its Appendix 1 on the basis of the assessment by a company-designated physician. The Court of Appeals ruled that in this case, no such assessment was made by the company-designated physician. Further, under Appendix 1 of the POEA-SEC, petitioners operation involving the removal of his gallbladder is not a compensable injury, disease, or illness.   Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. In its 21 February 2002 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for lack of merit.   Hence, the petition for review before this Court.   The Issues   The issues in this case are the following:   1. Whether the Labor Codes definition of permanent total disability applies to seafarers;