8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly never been considered to fall under the category of an officer or an Abie-Bodied Seaman. Hence, the maximum disability benefits do not apply to petitioner.[64] Lastly, respondents argue that because petitioner's condition was not work-related, sickness allowance must not be granted. This is since it is only provided for workrelated injury under the POEA Standard Employment Contract. Moreover, respondents assert that attorney's fees should be deleted since there is no bad faith on respondents' part, and the claim was denied on valid, legal, and factual grounds.[65] The issues for this Court's resolution are the following: First, whether or not petitioner George M. Toquero may raise questions of fact in a Rule 45 petition; Second, whether or not petitioner's injury is compensable; and Third, whether or not the company-designated physician's findings must be upheld. Subsumed under this issue are the issues of whether or not referral to a third doctor is mandatory, and whether or not the evidence presented by respondents Crossworld Marine Services, Inc., Kapal Cyprus Ltd., and Arnold U. Mendoza should be excluded for being hearsay; and Finally, whether or not petitioner is entitled to sickness allowance and attorney's fees. We grant the Petition. I Only questions of law should be raised in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This Court is not a trier of facts and a review of appeals is not a matter of right. Nevertheless, this Court admits of exceptions subject to its sound judicial discretion.[66] In Medina v. Mayor Asistio, Jr.,[67] findings of fact by the Court of Appeals may be reviewed by this Court: (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 https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65333 8/22