1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly procedure the CA adopted in this case.[33] In the instant case, the CA was acting within its jurisdiction when, on certiorari, it did not merely adopt the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, but reversed the latter's ruling that the third doctor-referral rule is merely directory and not a mandatory procedure. The NLRC's ruling is clearly erroneous considering the plethora of doctrinal jurisprudence stating that the third-doctor-referral provision is mandatory. Thus, the CA acted within its jurisdiction when a petition for certiorari was filed before it. The Rules of Court requires that only questions of law should be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45.[34] As a rule, this Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[35] Petitions for review on certiorari should cover only questions of law as this Court is not a trier of facts.[36] However, the rules do admit exceptions[37] such as when the CA's judgment is based on misapprehension of facts and that it overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. Although the CA was correct in highlighting that referral to a third doctor is mandatory, it however, overlooked the fact that there was no final and categorical assessment and conclusion made by the company-designated physicians. It likewise misapprehended the fact that the company doctors' assessment is not yet a final conclusion as to the petitioner's disability, and that, there is no need to consult a third doctor in order to settle the issue. With the foregoing, this Court is compelled to revisit the factual circumstances of the instant case. In other words, the Court will re-evaluate the factual fi1dings of the labor officials and the CA. It is crystal clear that the exception, rather than the general rule, applies in the present case. To arrive at a judicious resolution of the present controversy, this Court deemed it proper to apply: a) Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC; b) Article 198 [192](c)(1), Chapter VI, Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code; and c) the Amended Rules on Employee Compensation (AREC) implementing Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code. Section 20(A)(3) of the POE-SEC provides: Section 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS 3. x x x x If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both parties. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65828 7/15