5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly provide. Following these provisions, the amount of P1,928,841.27 that they spent for Alberto’s medical treatment should, therefore, not be deducted from the disability benefits to which Alberto was equally entitled. The petitioners, thus, argue that the CA misconstrued these POEA-SEC provisions (on medical expenses, sickness allowance and disability benefits) when it affirmed the NLRC’s decision which ordered the deduction of Alberto’s medical expenses from the total monetary award. Lastly, the petitioners argue that the respondents failed to prove that they (the respondents) paid Alberto the amount of P144,318.03 representing his sickness allowance. They point out that: (1) the respondents belatedly presented the April 12, 2004 certification, the execution of which is even highly questionable; and (2) the respondents failed to prove via vouchers and/or receipts their payment of the sickness allowance. The Case for the Respondents The respondents maintain[22] that the CA did not err in affirming the NLRC’s resolution because the NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion. Relying on the CA’s ruling, they point out that: (1) the portion of the LA’s decision that denied Alberto’s claim for reimbursement of medical expenses had already become final and executory, and therefore unassailable, as Alberto no longer appealed from this decision; and (2) they had already paid the full amount of Alberto’s sickness allowance. The Court’s Ruling We find merit in the petition. Preliminary considerations: jurisdictional limitations of the Court’s Rule 45 review of the CA’s Rule 65 decision in labor cases In a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari, what we review are the legal errors that the CA may have committed in the assailed decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional errors that we undertake in an original certiorari action. In reviewing the legal correctness of the CA decision in a labor case taken under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, we examine the CA decision in the context that it determined the presence or the absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it and not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision, on the merits of the case, was correct. Otherwise stated, we proceed from the premise that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it. Within this narrow scope of our Rule 45 review, the question that we ask is: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case?[23] In addition, the Court’s jurisdiction in a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari is limited to resolving only questions of law. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57200 4/13