6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly SO ORDERED.[19] The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied in its Resolution[20] dated October 14, 2008. Undaunted, the petitioners filed the instant petition assailing the ruling of the CA. The Issue The petitioners assign the sole issue to be resolved: WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE CA COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN GRANTING THE RESPONDENTS' PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND DENYING THE PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY REVERSING AND SETTING ASIDE THE NLRC DECISION IN AWARDING DEATH BENEFITS UNDER THE POEA-SEC.[21] Ruling of the Court A careful perusal of the petition shows that it fundamentally assails the findings of the LA, as affirmed by the CA, that the evidence on record is insufficient to establish the petitioners' entitlement to death and burial benefits as a result of Rogelio's death. This clearly involves a factual inquiry, the determination of which is the statutory function of the labor tribunals. As a general rule, it must be emphasized that this Court is not a trier of facts and a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court must exclusively raise questions of law.[22] 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. It is a recognized exception, however, that when the CA's findings are contrary to those of the NLRC, there is a need to review the records to determine which of them should be preferred and more conformable to evidentiary facts.[23] In the present case, considering the conflicting findings of the LA and CA on one hand, and the NLRC on the other, this Court is impelled to resolve the factual issues along with the legal ones. Essentially, the fundamental issue to be resolved in this petition is whether or not the petitioners are entitled to death and burial benefits on account of Rogelio's death. The Court rules in the negative. In Masangcay v. Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc., et al.,[24] the Court held: As with all other kinds of worker, the terms and conditions of a seafarers employment is governed by the provisions of the contract he signs at the time he is hired. But unlike that of others, deemed written in the seafarers elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61878 3/8