11/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly physician due to the alleged haphazard and incomplete medical attention received from the company-designated physician.[30] The respondents, likewise, call attention to the petitioner's arrival in the Philippines on December 14, 2012, and that he only reported to the respondents five (5) days later or on December 19, 2012.[31] Per the petitioner's own admission, he consulted with his physician, Dr. Gundran, a day before the company physician's own diagnosis, with Dr. Gundran diagnosing him with Hypertension Stage II.[32] As for the petitioner's averment that over a year passed without any assessment of fitness/unfitness of non-work relation, the respondents allege that the declaration of the company-designated physician on December 21, 2012 was duly communicated to him, and that if it were true that there was no assessment, it is improbable and highly irregular that the petitioner waited a year before calling the respondents' attention on such a matter and only when the complaint had already been filed.[33] Ruling of the Court Both parties come to the Court with their own versions of the factual antecedents that birthed the herein controversy. As a general rule, the Court is disinclined to review these factual allegations due to the particular scope of its judicial review, which is limited to deciding only questions of law brought up on appeal. This rule, however, is replete with exceptions which would not only allow, but in fact necessitate a second look at the evidence of records. In Maria Vilma G. Doctor and Jaime Lao, Jr. v. NII Enterprises and/or Mrs. Nilda C. Ignacio,[34] it was held, thus: At the outset, the Court reiterates that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, its jurisdiction is generally limited to reviewing errors of law. The Court is not a trier of facts, and this applies with greater force in labor cases. Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality. They are binding upon this Court unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or where it is clearly shown that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in utter disregard of the evidence on record. However, it is equally settled that one of the exceptions to this rule is when the factual findings of the quasi-judicial agencies concerned are conflicting or contrary with those of the Court of Appeals, as in the present case. Thus, the Court proceeds with its own factual determination herein based on the evidence of the parties.[35] The exception applies in this case as the findings of fact of the lower tribunals, the LA and the NLRC, contradict those of the CA. In this regard, the Court takes a closer look at the records and finds in favor of the respondents. The evidence on record clearly shows that the CA did not err in reversing the factual findings of the LA and the NLRC that the petitioner is entitled to disability benefits. This case is predicated on whether or not the petitioner is entitled to disability benefits based on his allegation that his work with the respondents resulted in his total and permanent disability. In the absence of a CBA between the petitioner and the https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65376 5/15