5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Preliminary considerations a. Certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA and appeal under Rule 45 before the Court In a Rule 45 petition for review of the CA decision, which was rendered under a Rule 65 proceeding, what the Court determines is the legal correctness of the CA decision, i.e., whether the CA correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision brought before it - not whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In ruling for legal correctness, the Court views the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it. From the substantive point of view, the CA may not go beyond the determination of whether the NLRC’s decision is tainted with grave abuse of discretion because the ruling that is brought before it is already a final and executory ruling of the NLRC, there being no appeal provided for under the law. Accordingly, the Court generally accords respect to the NLRC’s factual findings and its conclusions from these findings since the absence of an appeal from the NLRC’s ruling is a statutory recognition of the labor tribunals’ expertise on the field of labor standards, labor relations and allied legislation. The substantive justification goes hand in hand with the procedural justification. From the procedural point of view, the CA has a limited scope in reviewing the NLRC decision because of the intrinsic limitation of the sole available remedy itself. A writ of certiorari is a remedy that lies only to correct acts rendered without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion - and not mere errors of judgment. For emphasis therefore, when a petition for certiorari is filed, the judicial inquiry should be limited to the issue of whether the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction[20] - and not whether the NLRC ruling is intrinsically correct or not.[21] Given this framework, the Court finds that the CA legally erred in its determination of the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion. Substantive Considerations A. Disability benefits as a matter of contract and law 1. Mere lapse of the 120 day period does not warrant payment of permanent total disability benefits Entitlement to disability benefits by seamen on overseas work is a matter governed, not only by medical findings but, by Philippine law and by the contract between the parties. The material statutory provisions are Articles 191 to 193 under Chapter VI (Disability elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57342 5/12