5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The petitioners aver that Margarito is disqualified from claiming any illness benefit on three grounds: (1) his diabetes is a pre-existing illness which he concealed during his PEME; (2) he failed to submit himself for post-employment medical examination to the petitioners’ designated physicians within three (3) days upon his return; and (3) the respondents failed to specifically allege or prove by substantial evidence that Margarito’s working conditions has causal relation to or increased his risk of contracting his illness.[24] The respondents, on the other hand, contend that the CA judiciously and correctly awarded Margarito with permanent disability benefits and sickness allowance. They posit that Margarito acquired his illness of “Renal Insufficiency; Diabetes Mellitus; IHD Blood + CBC +ANEMIA” during the term of his employment with the petitioners. They further argued that Margarito was very sick when he arrived in the Philippines and thus physically incapable of reporting to the petitioners’ office for post-employment medical examination. They denied that Margarito concealed his illness and claimed that the petitioners’ physicians, who subjected him to rigid and rigorous PEME, actually found him fit to work. They argued that the compensability of an illness does not depend on whether it was pre-existing but rather if it is work-related or work-aggravated which, in this case, was found by the CA to have been substantially established.[25] Ruling of the Court We find merit in the petition. Preliminarily, it must be emphasized that at the core of the foregoing arguments are factual questions which, generally, are outside the Court’s discretionary appellate jurisdiction under Rule 45. The Court is not a trier of facts hence, only questions of law, may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. It is not the Court’s function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again in view of the corollary legal precept that findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on this Court. Nevertheless, the Court will proceed to probe and resolve factual issues when any of these exceptional circumstances are present, viz: when there is insufficient or insubstantial evidence to support the findings of the tribunal or the court below, or when too much is concluded, inferred or deduced from the bare or incomplete facts submitted by the parties or,[26] where the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the LA and the NLRC.[27] Observably, the third exception is attendant in the present case hence, it is imperative to review the records to determine which finding is more conformable to the evidentiary facts. In view of the factual milieu of the case, the 3-day mandatory reporting requirement can be dispensed with. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57272 5/16