Indeed, such omitted material facts coming from complainant herself, is pregnant of bold manifestation that in fact she had difficulty in adjusting herself to the nature of her accepted position different from what was intended.  It reinforces thus, respondents’ observation that complainant misrepresented herself to her foreign employer that she knows the household chores.              Yet, despite all of these misgivings shown by complainant, her foreign employer was willing to give her time to organize and learn herself the duties and responsibilities attendant to the position of house helper.  But the same becomes naught when she insisted to be repatriated before the end of the one-year contract.               Normally, this Commission does not disturb the factual finding of the Labor Arbiter a quo when supported by substantial evidence. (Union of Filipino Workers vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 98111, April 7, 1993).               But in this case, We find it more prudent to deviate from said decisional rule to avoid injustice.               We sympathize with the misfortune of complainant, but factual as well as corroborative circumstances speak loudly against the charge of dismissal.  Complainant preferred to go back home earlier than expected.  As such, she should not be allowed to utilize this forum as a convenient avenue to enforce a claim which is devoid of factual or legal basis.[7]               The dispositive portion of the decision of the NLRC reads:   WHEREFORE, in view thereof, the appealed decision is hereby modified deleting the award of P155,411.15 representing unearned wages corresponding to the unexpired portion of the contract, there being no illegal dismissal that took place.   In all other respects, the decision is affirmed.   SO ORDERED.[8]             Anita Rodriguez (“Anita”) filed a motion for reconsideration on 3 September 1998.[9]             On 15 September 1998, Anita filed before the NLRC a Manifestation[10] asserting, inter alia, that —