6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Petitioner is in error in its submission that the findings of the LA in labor cases were final and binding upon courts exercising appellate jurisdiction. The general rule is that due to its recognized expertise as a result of its specific jurisdiction, the findings of the LA are accorded great respect if: one, they concurred with the findings of the NLRC; and two, if they are supported by substantial evidence. The foregoing rule is not absolute and admits of exceptions. Thus, in the following instances, the Court is compelled to resolve both factual issues along with the legal ones: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[30] In the case at bench, the factual findings of the LA differ from those of the NLRC and the CA. This divergence of positions constrains the Court to review and evaluate assiduously the evidence on record and determine whether or not petitioner is entitled to disability benefits. Petitioner Did Not Comply With The Procedures In Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.[31] (Vergara), it was stated that the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), through the POEA, has simplified the determination of liability for work-related death, illness or injury in the case of Filipino seamen working on foreign ocean-going vessels. Every seaman and the vessel owner (directly or represented by a local manning agency) are required to execute the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) as a condition sine qua non prior to the deployment of the seaman for overseas work. The POEA-SEC is supplemented by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the owner of the vessel and the covered seaman. In this case, the parties entered into a contract of employment in accordance with the POEA-SEC and they agreed to be bound by the CBA. Thus, in resolving petitioner’s claim for disability compensation, the Court will be guided by the procedures laid down in the POEA-SEC and in the CBA. On this point, Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC provides: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58873 5/13