4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly discretion, not errors of judgment. Finally, Poseidon maintains that it did not illegally dismiss the respondents. Highlighting the CA’s observation and the respondents’ own admission in their various pleadings, Poseidon reiterates that it simply ceased its fishing operations as a business decision in the exercise of its management prerogative. The Case for the Respondents The respondents point out in their comment[24] that the petition raises questions of fact, which are not proper for a Rule 45 petition. They likewise point out that the petition did not specifically set forth the grounds as required under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. On the merits, and relying on the CA ruling, the respondents argue that Poseidon dismissed them without a valid cause and without the observance of due process. The Issues At the core of this case are the validity of the respondents’ waivers and quitclaims and the issue of whether these should bar their claim for unpaid salaries. At the completely legal end is the question of whether Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 applies to the respondents’ claim. The Court’s Ruling We resolve to partly GRANT the petition. Preliminary considerations The settled rule is that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to the review of questions of law,[25] i.e., to legal errors that the CA may have committed in its decision,[26] in contrast with the review for jurisdictional errors that we undertake in original certiorari actions under Rule 65.[27] In reviewing the legal correctness of a CA decision rendered under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, we 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, and not strictly on the basis of whether the NLRC decision under review is intrinsically correct.[28] 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.[29] Viewed in this light, we do not re-examine the factual findings of the NLRC and the CA, nor do we substitute our own judgment for theirs,[30] as their findings of fact are generally conclusive on this Court. We cannot touch on factual questions "except in the course of determining whether the CA correctly ruled in determining whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in considering and appreciating [the] factual elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55926 5/14