cralawSO ORDERED.[20]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary cralaw cralawPetitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in its Resolution[21] datedApril 19, 2005.   Petitioner thus filed the instant petition, raising the following issues: cralaw I.   IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT IN 'GERMAN MARINE AGENCIES, INC. VS. NLRC, ET AL., 350 SCRA 629, CAN THE RESPONDENTS' COMPANY-DESIGNATED DOCTOR BE CONSIDERED COMPETENT AND RELIABLE ENOUGH TO DECLARE PETITIONER AS FIT TO WORK CONTRARY TO THE DECLARATIONS OF THREE (3) INDEPENDENT PHYSICIANS SIMILARLY FINDING HIM OTHERWISE?   II.   DOES THE EXECUTION BY PETITIONER OF A RELEASE AND QUITCLAIM ESTOP HIM FROM CLAIMING DISABILITY BENEFITS UNDER THE POEA STANDARD EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT?[22]       cralawAs The Court's Ruling in the CA, the issues raised by the petitioner are factual.He maintains that the diagnosis of his three (3) personal doctors declaring him unfit to work is more accurate and reliable than that of Dr. Pidlaoan, the company-designated physician. These three physicians, two of whom are orthopedic surgeons, are likewise in a better position to determine his fitness or unfitness for work, unlike Dr. Pidlaoan whose expertise cannot be ascertained from the medical certificate he issued. Petitioner thus assails the competence of Dr. Pidlaoan to assess his fitness to work.   Petitioner avers that the quitclaim he executed is invalid, as the amount he received as consideration therefor was much lower than what he should have received under the POEA Standard Employment Contract. He went on to argue that quitclaims are frowned upon by this Court as they are contrary to public policy.cralaw