cralawPetitioner appealed the Decision[15] to the NLRC onJuly 31, 2003 which issued its Resolution[16] dated February 19, 2004, affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter, with the modification that petitioner was entitled to US$1,350.00 or its peso equivalent, representing his salary for three (3) months. The NLRC ruled that petitioner should have been reinstated by respondents considering that when the former was declared 'fit for duty, his employment contract had not yet expired. Thus, respondents were liable for his salary corresponding to the unexpired portion of the employment contract or three months' salary for every year of the unexpired term whichever is less, pursuant to Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042. The fallo of the Resolution reads:   cralaw cralawWHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is DENIED. However, for reasons stated above, the Decision dated 11 July 2003 is hereby MODIFIED, ordering respondents-appellees to indemnify complainant-appellant in the amount of US$1,350.00 or its peso equivalent at time of payment.   cralawSO ORDERED.[17]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary     cralawPetitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the NLRC denied on April 27, 2004.[18] He forthwith filed a Petition for Certiorari[19] with the CA, assailing the ruling of the labor tribunal.   cralawOn January 25, 2005, the CA rendered judgment dismissing the petition.The appellate court declared that the issues raised by petitioner relating to the credibility and probative weight of the evidence presented were factual in nature, hence, proscribed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The CA noted that petitioner did not even contest the due execution, voluntariness and veracity of his own handwritten quitclaim. Thus, he was estopped from assailing the Deed of Release and Quitclaim he executed after receiving US$405.00 from respondents.Considering that petitioner was examined by the company-designated physician and did not protest the findings thereon and later received sickwages, the appellate court concluded that the NLRC was correct in its ruling. The dispositive portion of the CA decision states:   cralawIN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is ordered DISMISSED. No pronouncements as to costs.