output are in keeping with the Zero Backlog Project of the Court. Suffice it to state that aside from its sentiment that this unusual, extraordinary haste raises suspicion, petitioner was not able to present any concrete evidence of irregularity. Second. Petitioner contends that the appellate court totally disregarded factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC which allegedly are supported by substantial evidence. The factual findings[23] which are relevant to the issues raised are: 1) Arbit resigned due to inadequate food provisions; 2) Arbit sought medical attention from hospitals other than those accredited by petitioner in violation of the latters advice to transfer Arbit to the Metropolitan Hospital; and, 3) Arbit misrepresented his true medical condition and employment history. These issues shall be resolved in the succeeding discussions. Third. Petitioner argues that the NLRC did not abuse its discretion when it denied Arbit of repatriation cost. The NLRC applied Section 18(B)[3] of the POEA Standard Employment Contract[24] (Contract), viz: SECTION 18. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT xxx B. The employment of the seafarer is also terminated when the seafarer arrives at the point of hire for any of the following reasons: xxx 3. when the seafarer, in writing, voluntarily resigns and signs-off prior to expiration of contract pursuant to Section 19(G) of this Contract. xxx Section 19(G) states: Section 19. REPATRIATION xxx G. A seafarer who requests for early termination of his contract shall be liable for his repatriation cost as well as the transportation cost of his replacement. x x x. Finding that Arbit signed-off and disembarked due to poor food provisions and gross negligence,[25] the NLRC denied reimbursement of the cost of repatriation pursuant to Section 19(G) of the Contract. The Court of Appeals found otherwise and applied Section 18(B)[1] of the Contract, viz.: SECTION 18. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT