[22]   Factual findings of administrative agencies will be set aside if found arbitrary. [23]             Petitioner assails the appellate court’s finding that it was incredible for Anita not to know her job because the nature of work of a domestic helper was easy. Petitioner asserts that the Court of Appeals “completely overlooked that it was not a matter of learning the job, but it was more on the psychological preparedness of Anita to do menial job, which way back home were being done by her own househelpers.”  Petitioner asserts that it did not say that Anita did not know her job as even petitioner’s evaluation of Anita’s qualifications was outstanding.  Petitioner stresses that Anita’s repatriation was of her own accord.             On the other hand, Anita asserts that all that petitioner has presented were mere self-serving allegations, such as (1) she was not doing her job as domestic helper; (2) she did not know how to wash clothes; (3) she had broken several glasswares of her foreign employer; and (4) when her foreign employer called her attention, she allegedly answered that she used to have her own househelper at home to do the housekeeping chores for her.  Anita asserts that petitioner has not adduced any substantial evidence to support its allegations.             Anita also asserts that she did not have second thoughts about accepting the job of domestic helper because she knew how to do the job of a domestic helper.             We note that in its Position Paper filed before the Labor Arbiter, petitioner pointed out that they had agreed in their employment contract that Anita’s placement was subject to a 40-day probationary period.[24]  Anita is deemed to have admitted the existence of this stipulation in the employment contract as she never disputed  petitioner’s assertion in all the pleadings that she submitted to the NLRC, the Court of Appeals, and this Court.  Hence, even if it were true that Anita’s foreign employer terminated her services after 10 days of her employment,