5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly vital organs; and that he failed to submit documents to substantiate his claim for compensability. Furthermore, we find that despite the non work relatedness of the illness of complainant-appellee, respondents-appellants in good faith exerted efforts and caused complainant-appellee’s treatment in a foreign country, shouldered his repatriation expenses and caused his examinations and treatment for more than eight (8) months shouldering the expenses therein. Under the circumstances, respondents-appellants is not liable for the disability benefits of complainant-appellee considering that his illness of hypertension was not proven by substantial evidence to be work-related.[64] A petition for review is limited to questions of law.[65] This court does not “re-examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or substitute the findings of fact of the NLRC, an administrative body that has expertise in its specialized field.”[66] This court has held that “factual findings of the NLRC, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally conclusive on this court.”[67] Petitioner presents no compelling reason for this court to deviate from this general rule. Petitioner’s reliance on Dr. Vicaldo’s medical opinion also fails to convince. 20(B)(3) of the POEA contract provides: Section 3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days. For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits. If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties.[68] (Emphasis supplied) Petitioner did not consult with a third doctor chosen by both parties. His contention is that the National Labor Relations Commission and Court of Appeals both erred in giving more credence to the assessment of the company-designated physician, Dr. Ongelibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58809 7/17