6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly discretion by capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding evidence that is material to or decisive of the controversy; and it cannot make this determination without looking into the evidence of the parties. Necessarily, the appellate court can only evaluate the materiality or significance of the evidence, which is alleged to have been capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarded by the NLRC, in relation to all other evidence on record. Notably, if the CA grants the petition and nullifies the decision or resolution of the NLRC on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction, the decision or resolution of the NLRC is, in contemplation of law, null and void ab initio; hence, the decision or resolution never became final and executory.[69] (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted) II The Petition in this case does not raise questions of fact. The difference between a question of fact and a question of law was discussed in Century Iron Works, Inc. v. Bañas:[70] A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the question must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact.[71] (Citations omitted) Contrary to respondent Bahia Shipping Services, Inc.'s argument, petitioner raised only questions of law. The arguments in this Petition for Review[72] show that petitioner does not question the findings of fact of the labor tribunals and the Court of Appeals. The main issue raised by petitioner is whether she is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits based on the factual findings of the labor tribunals. The other issue raised by petitioner is whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission. Clearly, the issues raised by petitioner do not require the evaluation of the evidence presented before the labor tribunals. The resolution of the issues raised by petitioner entails a review of applicable laws and not whether the alleged facts are true. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61719 7/26