4/20/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly examination is not exploratory, Castillon fell ill during the term of his contract. Moreover, this illness was further aggravated by the nature of his work.[61] He worked for more than eight (8) hours, lifted heavy objects, and was exposed to oils and fumes. [62] Further, it is questionable why respondents paid Castillon US$20,000.00 while they continue to insist that his ailment was not work-related.[63] The issues for this Court's resolution are the following: (1) Whether or not petitioners may raise questions of fact in a Rule 45 petition; (2) Whether or not petitioners may claim for disability or death benefits against respondents. Subsumed under this issue are the following: (a) whether or not the findings of the company-designated physician must be upheld and (b) whether or not Castillon's illness is work-related; and finally (3) Whether or not the quitclaim signed by Castillon was valid. Subsumed under this issue is whether or not the order of dismissal operates as res judicata. I As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review.[64] Generally, this Court "does not re-examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or substitute the findings of fact of the [National Labor Relations Commission], an administrative body that has expertise in its specialized field."[65] In Fuji Television Network, Inc. v. Espiritu,[66] procedural parameters for petitions for review in Appeals decision in a Rule 65 petition is appealed Court, only questions of law may be decided upon. this Court explained in length the labor cases. Thus, when a Court of by way of a Rule 45 petition to this Thus: This Court is not a trier of facts. Well-settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are completely devoid of support from the evidence on record, or the assailed judgment is based on a gross misapprehension of facts. Besides, factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive upon the parties and binding on this Court.[67] Nevertheless, when there is a showing that the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked facts which would justify a different conclusion,[68] or when there is insufficient evidence to support the findings of the lower courts, or when too much is concluded from bare or incomplete facts submitted by the parties,[69] this Court can delve into questions of fact and review the evidence on record. A careful review of this case reveals relevant and crucial facts which were overlooked by the Court of Appeals and labor tribunals. Thus, we proceed to resolve the questions https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66406 7/35