In assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals, petitioner contends that:   1.      The Petition for Certiorari filed by respondent before the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. No. Sp-54386 was out of time, hence, the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain the same; and   2. The factual findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to             those of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC Case  No. Adj. (L) 95-010306.[18]         The Ruling of the Court             We find merit in the petition.             Petitioner has raised a factual issue, i.e., whether Anita was illegally dismissed, which is not proper in a petition for review. We have consistently ruled that it is not the function of this Court to assess and evaluate the facts and the evidence again, our jurisdiction being generally limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the trial court or administrative agency. [19]   Nevertheless, since the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the Labor Arbiter are at variance with those of the NLRC, we resolve to review the records and the evidence presented by the parties.[20]             This Court generally accords respect to the factual findings of the NLRC.  However, the rule is equally settled that this Court will not uphold erroneous conclusions of the NLRC if the NLRC’s findings of fact on which its conclusions are based are not supported by substantial evidence.[21]  Substantial evidence, which is the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact in cases before administrative or quasi-judicial  bodies, is that level of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.