5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly maintains that his diabetes is not entirely a hereditary disease as several studies have already shown that it can be caused or aggravated by stress.[46] According to him, his work entails the performance of strenuous physical activities, emotional stress of being away from his family, and exposure to varying temperatures and weather conditions. [47] Simbajon also reiterates that an employee who is not able to work for more than 120 days because of his work-related illness should be considered suffering from a total and permanent disability, hence entitled to a Grade I (120%) rating under the POEA-SEC. [48] Finally, Simbajon defends the award of attorney’s fees as he was forced to litigate when petitioners refused to honor his disability claims.[49] The Court’s Ruling We resolve to GRANT the petition. Preliminary Procedural Consideration As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition.[50] A Rule 65 petition for certiorari, on the other hand, focuses on the jurisdictional errors the lower court or tribunal may have committed.[51] The present petition is a Rule 45 petition reviewing a Rule 65 ruling of the CA. Our jurisdiction is thus limited to errors of law which the CA might have committed in its Rule 65 ruling. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts; we cannot rule on questions of fact, i.e., on the truth or falsity of the facts alleged by the parties.[52] “In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case, was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review under Rule 45, of the NLRC decision challenged before it. This is the approach that should be basic in a Rule 45 review of a CA ruling in a labor case. In question form, the question to ask is: did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case?”[53] We therefore contend with the following principal question: did the CA correctly rule that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it held that Simbajon is not entitled to disability benefits? Compensability of Simbajon’s disease elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57289 5/16