5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [22] Decision, p. 6. [23] LABOR CODE, Article 221; 2011 NLRC RULES OF PROCEDURE, Rule VII, Section 10. [24] See Section 20(B) I996 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract. [25] Section I, Rule l3I of the Rules of Court reads: Section I. Burden of proof — Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. [26] This qualification on the definition of substantial evidence was first made in I97l in In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus ofLansang, et al., 149 Phil. 547, 593 (1971), holding as follows: Under the principle of separation of powers and the system of checks and balances, the judicial authority to review decisions of administrative bodies or agencies is much more limited, as regards findings of fact made in said decisions. Under the English law, the reviewing court determines only whether there is some evidentiary basis for the contested administrative finding; no qua ntitative examination of the supporting evidence is undertaken. The administrative finding can be interfered with only if there is no evidence whatsoever in support thereof, and said finding is, accordingly, arbitrary, capricious and obviously unauthorized. This view has been adopted by some American courts. It has, likewise, been adhered to in a number of Philippine cases. Other cases, in both jurisdictions, have applied the "substantial evidence" rule, which has been construed to mean "more than a mere scintilla" or "relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion," even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise. [italics supplied] [27] CA Decision, pp. 12-16. [28] Id. at 15-16. [29] There is no standard by which the weight of conflicting evidence can be ascertained. We have no test of the truth of human testimony except its conformity to our knowledge, observation, and experience (Frondarina v. Malazarte, G.R. No. 148423, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 223, 225, citing III V. Francisco, Criminal Evidence 146 [1947], in turn citing I Moore on Facts 35). [30] Decision, p. 9. [31] Rollo, pp. 196, 212 214. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56605 29/31