Labor Arbiter, NLRC and the CA that private respondent’s dismissal was improper and illegal.   The Court finds the petition without merit.   Anent the first assigned error, it is a settled rule that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised in this Court.[10]  Judicial review by this Court does not extend to a re-evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the proper labor tribunal has based its determination.[11]  Firm is the doctrine that this Court is not a trier of facts, and this applies with greater force in labor cases.[12]  Factual issues may be considered and resolved only when the findings of facts and conclusions of law of the Labor Arbiter are inconsistent with those of the NLRC and the CA.[13]  The reason for this is that the quasijudicial agencies, like the Arbitration Board and the NLRC, have acquired a unique expertise because their jurisdiction are confined to specific matters. [14]  In the present case, the question of whether private respondent is guilty of desertion is factual.  The Labor Arbiter, NLRC and the CA are unanimous in their findings that private respondent is not guilty of desertion and that he has been illegally terminated from his employment.  After a review of the records of the instant case, this Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of these tribunals.   Petitioners assert that the entries in the logbook of MV Cemtex General[15] and in the Marine Note Protest[16] which they submitted to the NLRC confirm the fact that private respondent abandoned the vessel in which he was assigned.  However, the genuineness of the Marine Note Protest as well as the entries in the logbook are put in doubt because aside from the fact that they were presented only during petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration filed with the NLRC, both the Marine Note Protest and the entry in the logbook which were prepared by the officers of the vessel were neither notarized nor authenticated by the proper authorities.  Moreover, a reading of these entries simply shows that private respondent was presumed to have deserted his post on the sole basis that he was found missing while the MV Cemtex General was anchored at the port of Takehara, Japan.  Hence, without any corroborative evidence, these documents cannot be used as bases for concluding that private respondent was guilty of desertion.