6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In essence, the Court is called upon to rule on the following issues: (1) whether or not the respondent complied with the post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return to the Philippines; and (2) whether or not the respondent's illness was work-related and was contracted during the term of his employment. The Court's Ruling After a careful perusal of the arguments presented and the evidence submitted, the Court finds that there is merit in the petition and that the arguments of the respondent fail. As a general rule, only questions of law are reviewable by the Court. This is because it is not a trier of facts;[25] it is not duty-bound to analyze, review, and weigh the evidence all over again in the absence of any showing of any arbitrariness, capriciousness, or palpable error.[26] Thus, factual findings of administrative or quasijudicial bodies, including labor tribunals, arc accorded much respect by the Court as they are specialized to rule on matters falling within their jurisdiction especially when these are supported by substantial evidence.[27] In labor cases, this doctrine applies with greater force as questions of fact presented therein are for the labor tribunals to resolve.[28] The Court, however, permitted a relaxation of this rule whenever any of the following circumstances is present: 1. when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; 2. when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; 3. when there is grave abuse of discretion; 4. when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; 5. when the findings of fact are conflicting; 6. when in making its findings, the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; 7. when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; 8. when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; 9. when the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs, are not disputed by the respondent; 10. when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or 11. when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[29] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63966 5/11