De Jesus filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[16] but the Court of Appeals denied it on December 12, 2001.[17] Aggrieved by the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, De Jesus comes to this Court positing these issues:   I   WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER SHALL (sic) BE AWARDED HIS UNPAID SALARIES, MEDICAL ALLOWANCE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF HIS MEDICAL EXPENSES.   II   WHETHER PETITIONER SHALL (sic) BEAR THE COST OF HIS REPATRIATION.[18]     It is a settled rule that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised before this Court. Judicial review by this Court does not extend to a re-evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the proper labor tribunal has based its determination. Firm is the doctrine that this Court is not a trier of facts, and this applies with greater force in labor cases. [19] However, factual issues may be considered and resolved when the findings of facts and conclusions of law of the Labor Arbiter are inconsistent with those of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals,[20] as in this case.   De Jesus insists on reimbursement for his medical expenses and entitlement to sickness allowance and his unpaid salaries. POMI, on the other hand, counters that De Jesus committed misrepresentation and breach of contract. The Labor Arbiter lent credence to De Jesus posture and granted his claims, but the NLRC and Court of Appeals reversed the Arbiters findings. Thus, a review of the records of the case, with an assessment of the facts, is necessary. The evidence shows that De Jesus previously suffered from ulcer but he ticked NO in his medical history. De Jesus, therefore, committed misrepresentation.Nonetheless, he passed the pre-employment medical