6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Reply to the Comment. In his Reply,[103] Madridejos claims that NYK-FIL made him appear that he was a "'first time employee' ... on probationary period for three (3) months."[104] As indicated in the Overseas Filipino Workers information record of the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency, his employment was merely a re-engagement contract with NYKFIL.[105] Thus, he could not be under probation.[106] He maintains that a day after his repatriation, he immediately reported to the manning agency to ask for "referral to the company-designated physician."[107] Technically, he was already under the company's consideration.[108] However, they still failed to conduct his post-employment medical examination insisting that he was not really sick at all.[109] On October 21, 2013, this Court issued a Resolution[110] requiring the parties to submit their Memoranda.[111] NYK-FIL maintains that Madridejos is not entitled to disability benefits since he was validly terminated pursuant to the terms of his employment contract.[112] On the other hand, Madridejos denies that the termination of his probationary contract caused his repatriation. He claims that due to his sebaceous cyst, "he could no longer effectively perform" his job as a Demi Chef; thus, he was terminated.[113] The Court of Appeals, however, ruled in favor of NYK-FIL. It affirmed the National Labor Relations Commission's finding[114] that Madridejos was repatriated in 2010 not for medical reasons but due to the expiration of his contract as a probationary employee. [115] The sole issue for this Court's resolution is Madridejos' entitlement to disability benefits. This petition lacks merit. I Madridejos cannot claim disability benefits since he was not medically repatriated. Since there are conflicting claims in this case, there is necessarily an attack on the factual findings of the labor tribunals and of the Court of Appeals. As a rule, we only examine questions of law in a Rule 45 petition.[116] Thus, "we do not re-examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or substitute the findings of fact of the [National Labor Relations Commission], an administrative body that has expertise in its specialized field."[117] Similarly, we do not replace our "own judgment for that of the tribunal in determining where the weight of evidence lies or what evidence is credible."[118] The factual findings of the National Labor Relations elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63066 9/25