6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly (M) 09-13306-13 are hereby REVERSED and SET Accordingly, respondent Magat's Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Respondent Magat is hereby DIRECTED to restitute or reimburse any and all amounts that petitioner company has paid him, in the event [that] the aforesaid Decision and Resolution of the public respondent have already been executed. SO ORDERED.[7] The CA ruled that petitioner's bare allegations do not suffice to discharge the required quantum of proof of compensability. It added that nowhere in the records can it find any documentation or medical report that petitioner contracted such heart illness aboard M/T North Star. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied in the CA's Resolution dated July 5, 2017. Hence, the present petition with the following ground: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN ANNULLING AND SETTING ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION WHICH AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE LABOR ARBITER GRANTING THE CLAIMS OF THE HEREIN PETITIONER FOR TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS.[8] Petitioner contends that the adjudications of the NLRC, in accord with the findings of the Labor Arbiter, prove that both labor tribunals, in their respective jurisdiction, had meticulously scrutinized the pleadings submitted and the pieces of evidence adduced by the parties which led to the finding that he is entitled to the award of total and permanent disability benefits. Petitioner further argues that contrary to the CA's finding, petitioner had complied with the three (3)-day reporting requirement for postemployment medical examination with the company-designated physician but it was the respondents who failed to refer the petitioner to a company-designated physician for medical treatment. Petitioner also claims that the completion of contract is inconsequential to the entitlement of a seafarer to permanent disability benefits as long as a reasonable work connection exists. In their Comment[9] dated January 3, 2018, respondents reiterated the decision of the CA. As a general rule, only questions of law raised via a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court[10] are reviewable by this Court.[11] Factual findings of administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, including labor tribunals, are accorded much respect by this Court as they are specialized to rule on matters falling within their jurisdiction especially when these are supported by substantial evidence.[12] However, a relaxation of this rule is made permissible by this Court whenever any of the following circumstances is present: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64110 4/11