8/23/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly related; that he had been suffering from it while he was still on board petitioners' vessel; and that he reported it to the ship captain. Petitioners never denied in any of the pleadings that they filed before the Panel and the CA that during his last contract with the petitioners, he was involved in at least three loading operations of marine cargoes. After lifting heavy cargoes on March 15, 2012, he experienced testicular swelling and pain which he reported to the Chief Officer. On April 17, 2012, while carrying heavy sacks of squid, his foot slipped which caused him to lose his balance. He felt a crack at his lower back. While he did not report the slipping incident on April 17, 2012, he reported it on April 20, 2012 to Captain Yamamoto when his back pains had become unbearable. His duties as Chief Cook and the additional strenuous activities of lifting, carrying, loading and unloading heavy cargoes reasonably established the work relation of his back pains to his work. The CA also correctly ruled that he is suffering from permanent and total disability. Contrary to the claim of the petitioners, respondent argued that jurisprudence has consistently ruled that in the assessment of whether a seafarer's injury is partial and permanent or total and permanent, the same must be so characterized not only under the Schedule of Disabilities found in Section 32 of the POEA-SEC, but also under the relevant provisions of the Labor Code and the Amended Rules on Employee Compensation (AREC) implementing Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code. Since he is unable to perform his job as Chief Cook for more than 120 days, he is permanently and totally disabled and properly assessed to be suffering from Grade 1 disability. He was also correctly awarded sickness allowance pursuant to Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC and reimbursement for the expenses he incurred for his physical therapy sessions. Anent the attorney's fees granted to him, respondent claimed that the same was correctly awarded in his favor as he was forced to litigate by reason of petitioners' adamant denial of his claim for full disability benefits. Petitioners' stubborn refusal to satisfy his valid claims entitled him to recover moral damages.[52] The Ruling of the Court Preliminary considerations: Only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review, exceptions The general rule is that only questions of law may be raised and resolved by this Court on petitions brought under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, because the Court, not being a trier of facts, is not duty-bound to reexamine and calibrate the evidence on record. Findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies, especially when affirmed by the CA, are generally accorded finality and respect. There are, however, recognized exceptions to this general rule, such as the instant case, where the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts and the findings of facts are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[53] Respondent is not entitled to disability benefits It is settled that the entitlement of a seafarer on overseas employment to disability benefits is governed by law, by the parties' contracts, and by the medical findings. By law, the relevant statutory povisions are Articles 197 to 199 (formerly Articles 191 to 193) of the Labor Code in relation to Section 2(a), Rule X of the AREC. By contract, the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65134 10/12