4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly board MV Star Princess. Respondent’s Position Laurel, in his Compliance and Manifestation with Comment to Petitioners’ Petition for Review on Certiorari,[20] counters that his illness is compensable because it was acquired during the effectivity of his employment contract while performing his work aboard the petitioners’ vessel. The fact that Grave’s Disease may be hereditary does not bar him from entitlement to disability benefits. Compensability does not require that employment be the sole cause of the illness. It is enough that there exists a reasonable work connection. The strenuous condition of his employment on board the MV Star Princess triggered the development of his hyperthyroidism due to his exposure to varying temperature and chemical irritants. Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, Laurel asserts that the burden of proof rests on the petitioners by virtue of the presumption of compensability under Section 32 of the POEA contract. Laurel likewise contends that the jurisdiction of the Court in cases brought before it from the CA by way of petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law, and that findings of fact of the latter are conclusive. Specifically, Laurel cited the case of Palomado v. National Labor Relations Commission,[21] in stating the fundamental rule that the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC if supported by substantial evidence are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality, and are binding upon the Court, unless the petitioner is able to show that the NLRC arbitrarily disregarded evidence before it or misapprehended evidence to such an extent as to compel a contrary conclusion if such evidence were to be properly appreciated. In this case, according to him, the CA correctly affirmed the finding of the NLRC that Laurel was entitled to disability compensation and other charges. The Court’s Ruling A perusal of the petitioners’ arguments discloses that the issues raised are essentially factual in nature. Generally, factual issues are not proper subjects of the Court’s power of judicial review. It is elementary that this Court is not a trier of facts and this rule applies with greater force in labor cases. Questions of fact are for the labor tribunals to resolve. Only errors of law are generally reviewed in petitions for review on certiorari criticizing the decisions of the CA. Indeed, findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, as affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on this Court. In exceptional cases, however, the Court may be urged to probe and resolve factual issues when there is insufficient or insubstantial evidence to support the findings of the tribunal or the court below, or when too much is concluded, inferred or deduced from the bare or incomplete facts submitted by the parties or, where the LA and the NLRC came up with conflicting positions.[22] The present case clearly falls within these exceptions as the finding of the LA, on one hand, conflicts with those of the NLRC and the CA, on the other. The Court, nevertheless, finds elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55780 for respondent Laurel, and resolves that his 5/15