findings, the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;  (7)  when the findings are contrary to the trial court;  (8)  when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;  (9)  when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent;  (10)  when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record;  and (11)  when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[40]  In the present case, the Court is constrained to review the NLRC’s findings of fact, which the CA chose not to pass upon, as there is ample evidence on record to show that certain facts were overlooked which would clearly affect the disposition of the case.   Foremost to consider and point out is that there is no factual basis for the monetary award in respondent’s favor. Significantly, the Labor Arbiter merely accepted per se private respondent’s computation on her monetary claims in view of JSCI’s failure to refute her allegations.  He did not assess and weigh or even touch upon herein petitioner’s arguments and evidence against respondent’s claims.  Clearly, the Labor Arbiter should not have precipitately granted private respondent’s claims because petitioner had adduced evidence to refute her allegations.  Since the Labor Arbiter’s decision did not touch upon or rule on petitioner’s arguments and evidence against respondent’s claims, the NLRC and the CA had no basis for affirming his findings.   Petitioner submits that the NLRC already resolved the same issues in this case in its Decision dated June 25, 1997 in NLRC OCW CA 012269-97,