6/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly genetic chromosomal abnormality.[61] Although contradicted by Alcid's doctors, their opinions are unworthy of credence as they did not conduct an extensive examination on Alcid. Respondents aver that Alcid is not entitled to the maximum disability benefit under the CBA, which only covers permanent disabilities resulting from accidents.[62] Neither is he entitled to the full sickness allowance of US$2,252.00, as he had already been paid US$1,388.73.[63] At best, respondents may only be held liable for US$863.27.[64] Respondents clarify that their obligation to provide medical care and treatment accrues only insofar as Alcid suffered from a work-related illness. Likewise, said obligation lasts until the company-designated physician has assessed the level of disability or has confirmed the absence of a work-relation.[65] Hence, their duty to provide medical treatment ceased as soon as the illness was declared to have no causal connection with the nature of his job.[66] Moreover, under the CBA, the respondents' obligation for medical care and treatment lasts for 130 days after initial hospitalization. Respondents shouldered Alcid's medical costs from January 11, 2009 until May 11, 2009.[67] Finally, respondents claim that they are not liable for attorney's fees considering that their denial of Alcid's claim was valid and made in good faith.[68] Ruling of the Court The petition is impressed with merit. Parameters of Judicial Review Under Rule 45 and the Exceptions Thereto It must be noted at the outset that Alcid's entitlement to compensation is a factual issue. As a general rule, factual matters are not the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari,[69] as it is not this Court's function to analyze or weigh the evidence which has been considered in the proceedings below.[70] Nevertheless, a review of the factual findings IS justified under the following circumstances: (i) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (ii) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (iii) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (iv) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (v) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (vi) when in making its findings[,] the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (vii) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; (viii) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (ix) when the facts set forth in the petition[,] as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs[,] are not disputed by the respondent; (x) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66892 6/23