4/6/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly (e) whether petitioner Peralta should be solidarily liable with Prime Stars. Simply put, the issues boil down to whether the CA erred in holding petitioners liable for respondents' money claims pursuant to their contracts of employment. The Ruling of the Court The Court finds no merit in the petition. The issues raised herein by petitioners are essentially factual. It is an elementary principle that the Court is not a trier of facts.[34] Judicial review of labor cases must not go beyond the evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon and as such, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the NLRC are generally accorded not only great weight and respect but even clothed with finality and deemed binding on the Court as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[35] However, where there are variance and conflicting factual findings between the LA and the NLRC, as in the case at bench, the Court deems it necessary to reassess these factual findings for the just resolution of the case. Beltran was illegally dismissed. Petitioners maintain that Beltran voluntarily preterminated her contract of employment for personal reasons; thus, it precluded her from recovering the unexpired portion of her employment contract. They also contest Beltran's bare testimonies and allegations of undue pressure and duress for being unsubstantiated and in contrast to petitioners' documentary evidence which are Beltran's duly signed Mutual Contract Annulment Agreement and Worker Discontinue Employment Affidavit. The Court is not convinced. As similarly declared by the NLRC and the CA, petitioners' complete reliance on Beltran's alleged voluntary execution of the Mutual Contract Annulment Agreement and the Worker Discontinue Employment Affidavit to support their claim that Beltran voluntarily preterminated her contract is unavailing considering that the filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with resignation.[36] The Court finds it highly unlikely that Beltran would just quit even before the end of her contract after all the expenses she incurred and still needed to settle and the sacrifices she went through in seeking financial upliftment. It is incongruous for Beltran to simply give up her work, return home, and be unemployed once again given that so much time, effort, and money have already been invested to secure her employment abroad and enduring the tribulations of being in a foreign country and away from her family. Apropos to the foregoing, the Court further adheres to the observation of both the NLRC and the CA that the wordings of Beltran's relinquishment of her contract of employment were ambiguous and doubtful. Contrary to the petitioners' assertion, the burden of proving that· Beltran voluntary preterminated her contract falls upon https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66097 5/12