Consequently, we find no reason to reverse the findings of the NLRC as the well-settled rule confines the original and exclusive jurisdiction of this Court in the review of decisions of the NLRC to the issue of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. As we have repeatedly said, grave abuse of discretion is committed only when the judgment is rendered in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner, which is not true in the present case. Certainly, an abuse of discretion does not necessarily arise just because NLRC reversed the decision of POEA. Neither does variance in the evidentiary assessment of NLRC and that of POEA warrants, as a matter of course, another full review of the facts. The decision or order of the NLRC so long as it is not bereft of support from the records deserves respect from this Court. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The appealed decision of the NLRC directing petitioners SINGA SHIP MANAGEMENT PHILS., INC., and ROYAL CRUISE LINE jointly and severally to pay private respondent MARIO SANGIL the sum of US $500.00 plus ten percent (10%) thereof as attorney's fees, is AFFIRMED, with costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Quisumbing, JJ., concur. i[1] NCR CA No. 003201-92, 14 December 1994; Decision penned by Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino with Commissioner Victoriano R. Calaycay concurring and Commissioner Rogelio I. Rayala dissenting. ii[2] Records, p. 13. iii[3] POEA Case No. (M) ADJ 91-03-264; Decision penned by POEA Administrator Jose N. Sarmiento, p. 5, Rollo, p. 95. iv[4] Order of the NLRC, p. 12, Rollo, p. 34. v[5] Ibid. vi[6] Petition, p. 12; Rollo, p. 18. vii[7] Decision, p. 10; Rollo, p. 32.