6/8/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE RESPONDENT IS THE BROTHER OF THE DECEASED DESPITE THE UTTER LACK OF BASIS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE RELATIONSHIP.[15] Petitioner claims that Danilo's death is not compensable, since he committed suicide; that the photocopy of the facsimile transmission of the purported 4-page medical report of Dr. Hameed, which supported petitioner's claim, should have been admitted notwithstanding that the same was a mere photocopy since the original document is in a foreign country; and that administrative and quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound by technical rules of procedure in the adjudication of cases. Petitioner argues that the written report dated September 21, 1994, signed by Danilo's fellow crew members, should have also been considered in the resolution of this case. The main issue for resolution is whether Danilo committed suicide during the term of his employment contract which would exempt petitioner from paying Danilo's death compensation benefits to his beneficiaries. In a petition for review on certiorari, our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law in the absence of any showing that the factual findings complained of are devoid of support in the records or are glaringly erroneous.[16] We are not a trier of facts, and this applies with greater force in labor cases.[17] Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality.[18] They are binding upon this Court unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or where it is clearly shown that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in utter disregard of the evidence on record.[19] We find these exceptions in this case. The LA, the NLRC and the CA found that Danilo died of Asphyxia by strangulation based on the NBI post-mortem findings and certification issued by the medico-legal officer, Dr. Reyes. These three tribunals did not give credence to the evidence presented by petitioner proving that Danilo committed suicide, which evidence consisted of (1) a photocopy of the fax transmission of the medical report of Dr. Hameed, the Saudi Arabian doctor who immediately conducted an autopsy on Danilo’s body upon his death; and (2) the written report of three fellow crew members of Danilo. We reverse the ruling. The three tribunals agreed to respondent's claim that the photocopy of a fax transmission of Dr. Hameed’s medical report is unverifiable and unreliable; thus, did not give credence to the same. However, we find that respondent is estopped from raising its objection to such photocopy of medical report, since respondent even lifted portions in the report which would allegedly prove his claim of Danilo's death by strangulation. Notably, respondent would refer to portions of the medical report which suit his purpose but raises the report’s authenticity and reliability since the conclusion was adverse to him. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/40027 4/8