6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly III THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED ERRONEOUSLY WHEN IT FOUND THE PETITIONERS LIABLE FOR DEATH BENEFITS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT AT THE TIME RESPONDENT'S SPOUSE DIED, NO EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN THE DECEASED AND HEREIN PETITIONERS. IV THE HONORABLE APPELLATE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE DEATH OF RESPONDENT'S SPOUSE WAS WORK RELATED DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE THIS FINDINGS. V THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE TWIN RESOLUTIONS DATED JANUARY 24, 2008 AND MAY 31, 2008, BASED SOLELY ON THE ARGUMENTS AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS OF THE RESPONDENT INSTEAD OF THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. The present petition basically questions the appreciation of facts on the part of the CA. As a rule, only questions of law, not questions of fact, may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.[6] The Court is thus generally bound by the CA's factual findings. There are, however, exceptions to the foregoing, among which is when the CA's factual findings are contrary to those of the trial court or administrative body exercising quasi-judicial functions from which the action originated.[7] The present petition falls under the exception due to the different factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA. The first two issues raised by petitioners are technical in nature. They argue that the CA has no jurisdiction over the present case because the Resolutions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have become final and executory. They claim that both resolutions have become final and executory as early as June 16, 2008, before respondent filed her petition for certiorari with the CA on June 25, 2008. Petitioner's argument is meritorious. In Aliviado v. Procter and Gamble Phils., Inc.[8] this Court has extensively discussed the finality of a judgment, thus: It is a hornbook rule that once a judgment has become final and executory, it may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land, as what remains to be done is the purely ministerial enforcement or execution of the judgment. The doctrine of finality elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58917 of judgment is grounded on fundamental 3/9