6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Petitioner mainly argues that the CA erred in giving much weight and credence to the findings of the company-designated physicians that his illness is not work-related and in totally disregarding the medical assessment of Dr. Jacinto, his appointed doctor. Petitioner, likewise, contends that he is already entitled to full disability compensation in accordance with the POEA-SEC, because he was not declared fit to work upon the lapse of 120 days from his sign-off from the vessel M.V. Kalpana Prem for medical treatment. Petitioner also posits that the matters raised by respondents with the CA are factual matters which fall within the primary jurisdiction of the NLRC and which are not proper subjects of inquiry by the appellate court in a petition for certiorari. Petitioner argues that the CA should have accorded not only respect but even finality to the factual findings and conclusions of the NLRC. Petitioner also contends that the CA should have dismissed the petition for being moot and academic based on his allegation that respondents already paid and settled the monetary award while the petition was pending before the CA. The petition is bereft of merit. Before delving into the main issues raised, the Court shall first dispose of the procedural matters brought up by petitioner. First, petitioner contends that what was raised by respondents in their petition filed with the CA "are purely factual matters and concerns that were already judiciously resolved by the x x x NLRC [and] [considering that the [CA] is not a trial court and it is not a trier of facts and only exercising an appellate jurisdiction over the x x x NLRC then factual matters and concerns are not certainly within the ambit of judicial inquiry in the petition considering that there was no palpable error or grave abuse of discretion committed by the x x x NLRC in rendering its assailed decision.[38] The Court is not persuaded. It is a long-settled rule that the proper mode for judicial review of decisions of the NLRC is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[39] As to the propriety of reviewing the factual findings of the NLRC in a certiorari petition, this Court's ruling in Univac Development, Inc. v. Soriano[40] is instructive. Thus, this Court has held that: xxxx x x x in a special civil action for certiorari, the issues are confined to errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. In exercising the expanded judicial review over labor cases, the Court of Appeals can grant the petition if it finds that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding evidence which is material or decisive of the controversy which necessarily includes looking into the evidence presented by the parties. In other words, the CA is empowered to evaluate the materiality and significance of the evidence which is alleged to have been capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63251 5/14