4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly US$16,795.00 (33.59% of US$50,000.00). The awards for damages and attorney’s fees were deleted for lack of bad faith on the part of the respondents who promptly provided the petitioner with medical assistance and sickness allowance from September 2008 to January 2009. Thus, the CA Decision[28] dated May 26, 2011 disposed as follows: WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is PARTLY GRANTED. The May 24, 2010 Decision of public respondent NLRC is SET ASIDE and the June 10, 2009 Decision of the Labor Arbiter is REINSTATED with MODIFICATION, to read, viz: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, ordering respondents United Philippine Lines, Inc. and Belships Management (Singapore) PTE Ltd. to jointly and severally pay (the petitioner) the sum of US$16,795.00 or its equivalent in Philippine Currency at the prevailing exchange rate at the time of payment, representing permanent medical unfitness benefits, plus legal interest reckoned from the time it was due. The claims for moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees are dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. SO ORDERED.[29] (Emphasis added) Aggrieved, the petitioner interposed the present petition ascribing misappreciation of facts on the part of the CA. The Court’s Ruling The petition is partially meritorious. There is no question that the petitioner’s injury is work-related and that he is entitled to disability benefits. The dispute lies in the degree of such injury and the applicable basis for the amount of benefits due for the same. Preliminarily, it must be emphasized that this Court is not a trier of facts hence, only questions of law, not questions of fact, may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.[30] In the exercise of its power of review, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on this Court and it is not our function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again. However, it is a recognized exception that when the CA’s findings are contrary to those of the NLRC and LA, as in this case, there is a need to review the records to determine which of them should be preferred as more conformable to evidentiary facts.[31] The petitioner’s injury should be elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56076 5/11