5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly of causing the flooding in the engine room and the conclusion that respondent’s injury was self-inflicted. It added that it was contrary to human nature and experience for respondent to burn himself.[38] Further, the CA noted that the location of the burns on the different parts of respondent’s body was more consistent with respondent’s assertion that certain chemicals splashed all over his body rather than petitioners’ theory of self-inflicted injury. [39] Moreover, it pointed out that no evidence was presented to show that respondent had no business near the engine room.[40] In the same vein, it observed that the mere finding of a cigarette lighter was inadequate to justify the conclusion that he burned himself.[41] Consequently, for petitioners’ failure to discharge the burden of proving that respondent’s injury was directly attributable to him as required under Section 20 (D) of the POEA-SEC, the CA found that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion and, thus, held petitioners liable to pay respondent permanent total disability benefits in the amount of US$60,000.00, or its peso equivalent.[42] On the other hand, respondent’s claims for moral and exemplary damages were denied for lack of basis but the CA awarded him attorney’s fees in the amount of P50,000.00. [43] Aggrieved, petitioners moved for reconsideration which was, however, denied in a Resolution[44] dated June 25, 2007. Hence, this petition. The Issue Before The Court The essential issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in finding that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it denied respondent’s claim for disability benefits. The Court’s Ruling The petition is meritorious. A. Preliminary Matters: Framework of Review and Governing Rules At the outset, the Court deems it proper to elucidate on the framework in which the review of this case had been conducted, in conjunction with the applicable governing rules to analyze its substantive merits. The Court’s jurisdiction in cases brought before it from the CA via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is generally limited to reviewing errors of law. The Court is not the proper venue to consider a factual issue as it is not a trier of facts. This rule, however, is not ironclad and a departure therefrom may be warranted where the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the NLRC and LA, as in this case. In this regard, there is therefore a need to review the records to determine which of them should be preferred as more conformable to evidentiary facts.[45] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56605 4/31