execution of the withdrawal form as well as the genuineness of his signature and thumb mark affixed therein.  On the contrary, he admitted signing the same. When he voluntarily signed the document, respondent is bound by the terms stipulated therein.[18]   We are not persuaded by respondent’s contention that he signed the withdrawal form upon representations by LNS that it would endorse his papers to Sharikat.  This really makes no sense at all.  Why would LNS allow Padua to withdraw his application papers, and even go through the process of making him execute a withdrawal form, if its ultimate intention is to endorse the said papers to Sharikat?  If respondent’s allegation is to be believed, why then would LNS relinquish its possession over said documents if it will refer them anyway to Sharikat?                    Moreover, we are inclined to give more evidentiary weight to the allegation of petitioner that it did not receive any amount from the respondent.  This conclusion is more logical considering that it has been duly established that respondent had withdrawn all his documents from LNS.  Having withdrawn said documents, there is no more reason for him to pay any fees to LNS.  In his Sworn Statement filed before the POEA, respondent alleged that he paid the P15,000.00 processing fees and P6,000.00 medical fees to LNS sometime in August, 2002.  This self-serving and unsubstantiated allegation deserves no credence at all considering that even before August, 2002, respondent had already withdrawn his documents from LNS.  It has not escaped our notice that the withdrawal form was dated and signed by respondent on July 27, 2002.  As such, after said date, there is no more reason for respondent to pay any fees to LNS.  Hence, we are not convinced or persuaded by respondent’s allegation that he still paid LNS in August 2002 after having withdrawn his documents on July 27, 2002.               There is likewise no basis for the POEA, DOLE, and the CA’s conclusion that it was petitioner that endorsed respondent’s documents to Sharikat. Other than respondent’s self-serving claim, there is no proof whatsoever that petitioner endorsed respondent’s application papers to Sharikat. Bare allegations which are not supported by any evidence, documentary or otherwise, sufficient to support a claim, fall short to satisfy the degree of proof needed.[19]  On the other hand, petitioner’s denial of these allegations was corroborated by the withdrawal form proffered as evidence, the existence and due execution of which were not disputed by respondent.   In addition, if respondent’s allegations were to be believed, we find it rather odd that LNS would require him to fill