4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In this petition, we are asked to consider the following question: Does Section 20(B) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, which is the governing law between the parties, grant disability benefits to a seafarer who was repatriated due to finished contract, and with no medical records onboard showing that he was ill at the time of disembarkation from the vessel nor was there any request from the seafarer within three (3) working days upon his return for post-employment medical examination?[13] (italics ours) In the main, the petitioners assail the award of disability benefits to Serna on the ground of his alleged non-compliance with the mandatory reporting requirement of the POEA-SEC.[14] In addition, they insist that no substantial evidence exists (a) that Serna had acquired the illness during the employment contract, and (b) that his illness was work-related.[15] The Court’s Ruling We affirm the ruling of the CA. As the subject employment contract is dated October 20, 1998, the POEA-SEC prescribed by POEA Memorandum Circular No. 5541, series of 1996[16] (1996 POEASEC) and its related jurisprudence shall aid in our disposition. The parameters of a Rule 45 appeal on the CA’s decision in a labor case The issues the petitioners raise unavoidably assail common factual findings of the labor arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA. As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition. In one case, we discussed the particular parameters of a Rule 45 appeal from the CA’s Rule 65 decision on a labor case, as follows: In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55380 4/13