3/31/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly G. WITH UTTER MODESTY, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALSOVERLOOKED [sic] THE ERROR COMMITTED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION WHEN IT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE PRESENTED BY THE [RESPONDENT].[37] The Courts Ruling The petition has no merit. At the outset, it bears stressing that in a petition for review on certiorari, the Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law in the absence of any showing that the factual findings complained of are devoid of support in the records or are glaringly erroneous.[38] The Court is not a trier of facts, and this rule applies with greater force in labor cases.[39] Questions of fact are to be resolved by the labor tribunals.[40] It is quite apparent that the present petition raises questions of fact inasmuch as this Court is being asked to reassess the findings of the LA, the NLRC, and the CA regarding the validity, regularity and due execution of the subject resignation letter,[41] Affidavit of Quitclaim and Desistance,[42] and the final settlement[43] allegedly executed by respondent before Assistant Labor Attaché Ofelia M. Castro-Hudson. It has been consistently held that the factual findings of the NLRC, when confirmed by the CA, are usually conclusive on this Court.[44] The Court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the tribunal in determining where the weight of evidence lies or what evidence is credible.[45] Needless to say, the Court does not try facts or examine testimonial or documentary evidence on record.[46] At times, the relaxation of the application of procedural rules have been , resorted to, but only under exceptional circumstances.[47] In this case, however, the Court finds no justification to warrant the application of any of the exceptions. As found by the LA, respondent was made to copy and sign a resignation letter, which purportedly showed that she admitted having preterminated her contract of employment and that she no longer had any demandable claim as she was treated well. [48] The LA further found that respondent's execution of the resignation letter was made as a precondition to the release of her passport and plane ticket,[49] which were in the possession of petitioners. Moreover, the NLRC judiciously observed: x x x Verily, the presumption of regularity of official acts, without a doubt, does not lie in the issue under consideration as the evidence on record point to the unmistakable conclusion that the circumstances surrounding the execution of [respondent's] resignation letter, affidavit of quitclaim, and final settlement are highly suspect. As borne out by the facts of the instant case, the receipt and quitclaim are not notarized while the affidavit of quitclaim and desistance shows that the place of execution is the City of Manila on 7 February 2011 when the same was supposedly verified by the Assistant https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65972 5/12