8/20/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In his Comment, Segui alleges, among other points, that since his injury is undoubtedly work-related as the same occurred while on board performing his duties and responsibilities, and he has been incapacitated for more than 120 days, he has the right to be compensated total and permanent disability benefits.[16] Segui also avers that in case of conflict between the medical findings of the company-designated physician and his physician, the doubt should be resolved in his favor applying the principle of social justice.[17] In their Reply, petitioners argue that Segui is not suffering from any permanent total disability, taking into consideration the disability grading given to him by the companydesignated physician within the period provided by law. Petitioners also assert that Segui's failure to submit the conflicting medical assessments to an independent third doctor militates against his claim for disability benefits.[18] The Court's Ruling The petition is denied. The Court has consistently held that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended. The Court is not a trier of facts and its jurisdiction is limited to errors of law. Here, the first ground, "whether the CA committed serious and reversible error in affirming disability compensation on the basis of an unproven and unsubstantiated Collective Bargaining Agreement" raised by petitioners is factual in nature and is not a proper subject of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended. Moreover, the issue had been passed upon by the LA, NLRC, and the CA. The CA provided sufficient explanation against petitioners' argument, as follows: To be sure, records bear that the vessel M/V Grand Quest which private respondent boarded and from which he was repatriated was "covered by ITF Agreement" from November 10, 2008 to November 9, 2012, encompassing the period when private respondent was employed by petitioners. Thus, there is no basis for petitioners' claim that the CBA was unproven. As correctly held by public respondent NLRC: We find untenable respondents' (petitioners') argument that the CBA under which the Executive Labor Arbiter based her award for disability benefits is unproven. It must be pointed out that the evidence attached by complainant as Annex "B" of his position paper shows that the vessel, Grand Quest, is covered by ITF Agreement from November 10, 2008 to November 9, 2012, x x x or during the period when complainant was employed by respondents as seafarer on board said vessel. Significantly, even as respondents insist that the CBA is unproven and unpresented, they never specifically denied or refuted the said evidence presented by complainant x x x; Hence, respondents are deemed to have admitted that the vessel, Grand Quest, is covered by ITF Agreement from November 10, 2008 to November 9, 2012. x x x[19] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64944 6/12