4/10/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The tenor of the first ground raised by LISI in support of its petition impels us to call its counsel’s attention to the basic rule that grave abuse of discretion is beyond the scope of appeals by certiorari like the one at bench.[24] Considering that only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari, the well-entrenched doctrine is also to the effect that questions of fact are not proper subjects in this mode of appeal.[25] When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties, and are not reviewed by this Court except when the findings are contrary with those of the lower court or quasijudicial bodies.[26] Since the CA’s factual findings can be questioned if they are, as here, contrary to those of the lower court and/or administrative agency,[27] we find that respondents cannot, in turn, argue that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the questions of fact pertinent to the grounds raised in support of LISI’s petition. Much had likewise been made of the Statement of Account that Calawigan claimed he had been issued for an eye examination in Ishinomaki, Japan where he was diagnosed to be suffering from “Uveitis”. Rejected by both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC on grounds of dubious authenticity, said document was given credence by the CA in view of the fact, among others, that Calawigan’s eye complaint was supposedly confirmed by the results of the ultrasonography he underwent at the SLMC which, in turn, resulted in the diagnosis that he was suffering from “Retinal Detachment w/ Vitreous Opacities, O.D.” The record shows, however, that Calawigan was declared entitled to sickness allowance and permanent disability compensation by the CA on the strength of Dr. Mendiola’s finding that said seafarer’s “moderate bilateral sensorineural hearing loss” in the right ear warrants a Grade 3 disability rating under the POEA-SEC. Thus, we find further discussions of said Statement of Account as well as the results of the SLMC ultrasonography to be, on the whole, immaterial in determining the merit of the petition at bench. Unfettered by the extraneous, we now go to respondent’s “moderate x x x deafness.” Deemed written in the seafarer's contract of employment, the 2000 POEA-SEC was designed primarily for the protection and benefit of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going vessels.[28] Anent a seafarer's entitlement to compensation and benefits for injury and illness, Section 20-B (3) thereof provides as follows: Section 20-B.Compensation and Benefits for Injury and Illness. — xxxx 3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician, but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55413 5/11