In sum, the issue boils down to whether petitioner failed to comply with the requirement pertaining to the rule on mandatory reporting thus rendering his illness non-compensable.   We resolve to deny the petition for lack of merit.      The present petition is premised on the argument that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the resolution of the NLRC dated 31 May 2007, which reversed and set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter granting disability benefits to the petitioner.   Petitioner is fundamentally assailing the findings of both the Court of Appeals and the NLRC, that the evidence on record does not support his claim for disability benefits.  This clearly involves a factual inquiry, the determination of which is not the statutory function of this Court. As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in and resolved by this Court on petitions brought under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.  The reason being that the Court is not a trier of facts; it is not duty-bound to re-examine and calibrate the evidence on record.  Moreover, findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally conclusive on this Court.[23]   In exceptional cases, however, we may be urged to probe and resolve factual issues when there is insufficient or insubstantial evidence to support the findings of the tribunal or court below, or when too much is concluded, inferred or deduced from the bare or incomplete facts submitted by the parties or, where the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC came up with conflicting positions.  The case at bar constitutes one of these exceptional cases.[24]                 As with all other kinds of workers, the terms and conditions of a seafarer's employment are governed by the provisions of the contract he signs at the time he is hired. But unlike that of others, deemed written in the seafarer's contract is a set of standard provisions set and implemented by the POEA called the 2000 Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels, which is considered to be the minimum requirement acceptable to the government for the employment of Filipino seafarers on board foreign ocean-going vessels.[25]          The issue of whether petitioner can legally demand and claim disability benefits from respondents  for an illness suffered is best addressed by the provisions of his POEA-SEC which incorporated the 2000 Amended Standard