4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly liable for attorney’s fees for their bad faith in refusing to pay his duly proved claim for disability benefits. The Court’s Ruling We resolve to GRANT the petition. Preliminary Considerations At the outset, we emphasize the settled rule that only questions of law are allowed in a petition for review on certiorari.[37] This Court’s power of review in a Rule 45 petition is limited to resolving matters pertaining to perceived legal errors that the CA may have committed in issuing the assailed decision,[38] in contrast with the review for jurisdictional errors that we undertake in an original certiorari action.[39] In reviewing the legal correctness of the CA decision in a labor case taken under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, we examine the CA decision in the context that it determined the presence or the absence of a grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it and not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision, on the merits of the case, was correct.[40] In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it.[41] Viewed in this light, we do not re-examine the factual findings of the NLRC nor do we substitute our own judgment for theirs[42] as findings of fact of labor tribunals are generally conclusive on this Court. As presented by the petitioners, the issues raised before us require the re-evaluation of the evidence on record and consideration of the applicable law. The question of Armando’s entitlement to disability benefits and attorney’s fees, while essentially a question of law appropriate for a Rule 45 review, nevertheless hinges for their resolution on a factual issue – the question whether the CAD, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity and alcoholism afflicting Armando are work-related or work-aggravated. Based on these Rule 45 parameters, we generally cannot touch factual questions. Nevertheless, in the exercise of our discretionary appellate jurisdiction, we allow certain exceptions, all in the interest of giving substance and meaning to the justice we are sworn to uphold and give primacy to. The conflicting ruling of the LA and the NLRC, on the one hand, and of the CA, on the other,[43] in the present petition is one such exception to the above general rule. A re-examination of the record for purposes of determining the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion committed by the CA is justified when this situation is present. Armando is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits The core issue for our resolution is whether Armando is entitled to disability benefits on account of his medical condition. The results of our consideration of the records compel us to rule in the negative. The entitlement of a seafarer on overseas employment to disability benefits is governed by the medical findings, by law and by the parties’ contract.[44] By law, the governing provisions are Articles 191 to 193, Chapter VI (Disability Benefits) of the Labor Code, in elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56107 6/17