6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. In the course of the treatment, the seafarer shall also report regularly to the company-designated physician specifically on the dates as prescribed by the companydesignated physician and agreed to by the seafarer. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits. If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both parties. On the basis of the above provisions, the Court will, thus, proceed to discuss the main substantive issues which relate to: (1) whether or not Ernesto's illnesses are workrelated or work aggravated, and (2) whether or not he is entitled to disability compensation by reason of such illnesses. The first issue is factual and it is settled that factual issues are not proper subjects in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Only questions of law should be raised in petitions filed under this Rule.[19] This principle, however, is subject to certain exceptions, to wit: (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) the finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of eviqepce and is contradicted by the evidence on record.[20] The crux of the instant petition revolves around the contrasting findings of the LA and the NLRC, on one hand, and the CA on the other with respect to the issue of whether or not respondent's illnesses are work-related or work aggravated. Thus, this issue may be the subject of this Court's review. From the pieces of evidence and arguments presented by the parties, it appears that the opinion of Ernesto's physician, that his illnesses are work related or work aggravated, is diametrically opposed to the evaluation made by the company doctor which found that Ernesto's illnesses are not work related. The LA and the NLRC gave credence to the findings of the company-designated doctor, while the CA gave more weight to the findings of respondent's physician of choice. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64139 7/14