5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly On the other hand, Olarte asserts that the argument that PETRA is different from Royal Dream is clearly an attempt on the part of Nahas, PETRA and Royal Dream to evade liability. She stresses that it was Nahas, for and in behalf of PETRA/Royal Dream, who performed the acts of recruitment which led to her deployment abroad; hence, all of them should be held jointly and solidarily liable with their foreign principal. Our Ruling The Petition has no merit. The Court is not a trier of facts; factual findings of the labor tribunals when affirmed by the CA are generally accorded not only respect, but even finality, and are binding on this Court. It must be stressed, at the outset, that the resolution of the issue of whether Nahas acted for and in behalf of PETRA and/or Royal Dream in deploying Olarte abroad is a question of fact. “Well-settled is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts and this doctrine 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 decisions of the CA.”[22] Also “[s]ettled is the rule that the findings of the [Labor Arbiter], when affirmed by the NLRC and the CA, are binding on the Supreme Court, unless patently erroneous.”[23] In this case, the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA are one in their factual conclusion that Nahas, acting for and in behalf of PETRA and Royal Dream, interviewed Olarte, caused her to sign an employment contract, and facilitated and made possible her deployment abroad. The Court is, therefore, not duty-bound to inquire into the accuracy of this factual finding, particularly in this case where there is no showing that it was arbitrary and bereft of any rational basis.[24] Nahas’ inconsistent positions militate against her case; her claim of lack of service of summons upon Royal Dream is likewise untenable. The Court notes that in her quest to evade liability, Nahas introduced several conflicting assertions. Before the Labor Arbiter, she admitted that Olarte indeed applied with PETRA and was interviewed by her but later withdrew the application. While Nahas intended to support this position with a document showing that Olarte requested for the withdrawal of her application, the same was, however, never submitted. What was instead unwittingly attached to her Position Paper was Olarte’s accomplished bio-data bearing the letterhead of Royal Dream. This did not escape the Labor Arbiter’s attention such that her March 20, 2002 Decision states: x x x While [PETRA/Nahas] admits that complainant was a [walk]-in applicant, respondent [PETRA] Agency’s claim that [Olarte] subsequently elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56962 6/10