6/8/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly that her salaries and other benefits had all been paid, are self-serving unofficial statements that have dubious evidentiary value. She reasons out that such letters, which were mentioned in the case cited by the agency in its submissions, [24] cannot be considered as "other documents" for nowhere in that case was the term "other documents" discussed and neither did the ruling give an example of "other similar documents that have the same force and effect as payrolls, employment records and remittances." [25] In the absence of evidence proving payment, Barit submits that her employer and the agency are solidarily liable for the award, pursuant to the law and the rules. Finally, Barit takes exception to the agency's argument faulting the CA for disregarding other relevant circumstances in the case, such as the completion of her contract without the filing of any claim for unpaid or underpaid salaries on her part, and her supposedly voluntary act of renewing her contract and living-in with another Filipino worker which led to her imprisonment. She maintains that these circumstances, even if considered, do not change the fact that there has been gross violation of Philippine laws by her employer and by the agency, for which they should be made solidarily liable. She explains that she was forced to act because of the long suffering inflicted on her by her employer who refused to pay her salaries in full and compelled her to extend her contract for another year. The Court's Ruling The Court, as a rule, [26] is bound by the factual findings of the CA, but has the discretion to reexamine the evidence in a case when a basic conflict exists between the CA's findings of fact and those of the NLRC. [27] In this case, such conflict exists and we need to reexamine their findings to determine: (1) whether Barit had been underpaid and/or had not been paid her wages during her employment in Saudi Arabia; and (2) whether the agency is solidarily liable with the foreign employer if Barit is indeed entitled to her money claims. We find merit in the petition. Under the circumstances of Barit's employment in Saudi Arabia, we wonder how she could have and why she remained in the service of the same employer for a considerable period of time if she had been underpaid her salaries or had not been paid at all, and why she had kept silent about her salary situation. Nowhere in the records does it appear that Barit complained about the alleged underpayment and non-payment of her wages with the Philippine labor or consular representatives in Saudi Arabia, or even with the Saudi authorities themselves. Neither is there any showing too that she ever objected to or protested her iniquitous work situation directly with Hameed, if that had really been the case, nor that Barit identified or spoke of any problem that could have prevented her from seeking relief in Saudi Arabia, as the NLRC noted. [28] Barit abruptly left her employer, not because she was being exploited with respect to her wages, but for a personal reason -- she left in order to live with her boyfriend Ambrosio. As a consequence of what she did, she ran afoul of the law of Saudi Arabia. This analysis leads us to conclude that the NLRC's conclusion is not without basis; elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/32168 5/9