III.                        Whether or not petitioner Skippers can be exempted from liability by the execution of Affidavits of Assumption of Responsibility executed by Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. and Evic Human Resources Management, Inc.   IV.                        Whether or not private respondents Maguad and Ciudadano are entitled to indemnity equivalent to the unexpired portion of their employment contract.[21]                              Respondents in their Memorandum[22] aver that petitioners raised questions of facts when they contended that the documents submitted to the Labor Arbiter already constitute the notices required under respondents’ employment contracts, and that these notices served as compliance with due process in effecting a valid dismissal; hence, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is not the proper mode of appeal before this Court.                     They also maintain that their alleged incompetence was not properly proven and their dismissal was tainted with illegality because they were not afforded due process.  On this basis, respondents are claiming entitlement to the amount of their salary for the unexpired portion of their employment contract.             Lastly, respondents aver that petitioner Skippers United Pacific, Inc. cannot be exempted from liability despite the execution of the Affidavits of Assumption of Responsibility by Sea Power Shipping Enterprises and Evic Human Resources Management, Inc. because the above-mentioned affidavits are only valid and binding between the principal and the manning agent.  It should not affect petitioner Skippers United Pacific, Inc.’s liability towards the seamen, specifically respondents, because the liabilities of the said petitioner as manning agency is joint and solidary with its principal and respondents’ actual employer, co-petitioner J.P.Samartzsis Maritime Enterprises Co., S.A.             Given the foregoing arguments raised by both parties, this Court identifies the following issues for resolution in the Petition at bar, viz:           I. Can this Court take cognizance of the Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court considering that the petitioners raised issues of facts?