In fine, Masangcay was not entitled to anything more than what he was already paid by the petitioners. As we noted earlier, the petitioners spent P209.533.10 for his confinement and surgery; and paid to him his full 120 days sick leave benefits totaling US$1,779.60.[33]   Masangcays motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated 30 May 2006.   Hence, this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court premised on the following arguments:   I.   IN LIGHT OF THE RECENT DECISION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT IN CRYSTAL SHIPPING, INC., (AND/OR) A/S STEIN LINE BERGEN VS. DEO P. NATIVIDAD, (SIC) G.R. NO. 154798, OCTOBER 20, 2005, PETITIONER SHOULD BE DEEMED TO BE SUFFERING FROM PERMANENT DISABILITY AND THUS ENTITLED TO DISABILITY BENEFITS UNDER THE POEA STANDARD EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT AND TO ATTORNEYS FEES.   II.   IN COMPENSATION PROCEEDINGS AS IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE DISABILITY OF PETITIONER MUST BE CONSTRUED NOT IN ITS MEDICAL SIGNIFICANCE BUT ON HIS INABILITY TO PERFORM HIS CUSTOMARY WORK.[34]     A priori, from a reading of the foregoing arguments laid out by Masangcay, it is quite apparent that this petition is raising questions of facts as we are asked to revisit anew the factual findings of the Court of Appeals. Masangcay is fundamentally assailing the appellate courts finding that the evidence on record is insufficient to establish his entitlement to disability benefits. In effect, he would have us sift through the data on record and pass upon whether or not there is sufficient basis to hold Trans-Global and Ventnor accountable for refusing to pay him his disability benefits under the POEAs Revised Standard Terms and ConditionsGoverning the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels, which is deemed written in his contract of employment. This clearly involves a factual inquiry, the determination of which is the statutory function of the NLRC.[35]