him for such a procedure as precisely, there was no job order as far as Wallan Al Wallan’s company was concerned.              Respondent Skills International also denies having facilitated petitioner’s deployment as an alleged balik-manggagawa as petitioner’s BalikManggagawa Information Sheet does not indicate the name of any local placement or recruitment agency. Moreover, on 19 June 1998, POEA [22] Administrator Felicisimo Joson issued an Order,  the pertinent portion of which reads:               The issue posed for Our resolution is whether or not the respondent agency (herein respondent) should be held liable for withholding worker’s salaries should be resolved in the negative.  As discussed, complainant (herein petitioner) was hired directly by his employer and the respondent agency had no participation whatsoever in his overseas employment.  Wanting in factual and legal [bases], the charged offense must be dismissed.               WHEREFORE, premises considered, let the instant case be, as it is hereby ordered DISMISSED for lack of merit.[23]               Respondent Skills International also insists that it did not receive placement fee from petitioner for the simple reason that it did not deploy him to work abroad for Wallan Al Wallan and that only petitioner and said employer are the ones privy to the circumstances surrounding the alleged salary deductions committed by the latter.             The petition must fail.             At the outset, it must be stressed that the resolution of the issue of whether respondent Skills International could be heldsolidarily liable for the alleged illegal dismissal of petitioner necessarily hinges on the primordial question of whether respondent Skills International was the one responsible for his deployment abroad.  This indubitably raises a question of fact which is not a proper subject of a Petition for Review on Certiorari.  It is axiomatic that in an appeal by certiorari, only questions of law may be reviewed.[24]