G. R. No. 179177 13 of 29 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/179177.htm POEA-SEC) dated 7 August 2001; and even though within the duration of his second POEA-unsanctioned employment contract dated 30 August 2001, his illness was not compensable. Petitioner Nisda is fundamentally assailing the finding of both the Court of Appeals and the NLRC that the evidence on record does not support petitioner Nisdas entitlement to disability benefits. This clearly involves a factual inquiry, the determination of which is not the statutory function of this Court. As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in and resolved by this Court on petitions brought under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The reason being that the Court is not a trier of facts; it is not duty-bound to re-examine and calibrate the evidence on record. Moreover, findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like the [51] NLRC, as affirmed by the [Court of Appeals], are generally conclusive on this Court. In exceptional cases, however, we may be constrained to delve into and resolve factual issues when there is insufficient or insubstantial evidence to support the findings of the tribunal or court below, or when too much is concluded, inferred or deduced from the bare or incomplete facts submitted by the parties, or where the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC came up with conflicting positions. exceptional cases. [52] The case at bar constitutes one of these The first error imputed by petitioner Nisda to the Court of Appeals essentially concerns the issue of jurisdiction, i.e., whether or not the NLRC and Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to alter, modify or reverse the 23 July 2003 Decision of the Labor Arbiter that had, allegedly, already attained finality. Petitioner Nisda asserts that the Labor Arbiters Decision dated 23 July 2003 was already final and executory, since respondents Sea Serve and ADAMS (1) filed their appeal with the NLRC beyond the ten-day reglementary period provided by the NLRC Rules of Procedure; and (2) failed to perfect their appeal before the NLRC because they were not able to post the requisite appeal bond. We are not persuaded. After a careful review of the records of the case, we see no reason to disturb the finding of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals that the joint appeal filed by respondents Sea Serve and ADAMS was duly filed and perfected in compliance with the NLRC Rules of Procedure. In the first place, nowhere in the records of the present petition is it shown that, 1/28/2016 1:07 PM