Verily, the report of Chief Engineer Retardo is utterly bereft of probative value.  It is not verified by an oath and, therefore, lacks any guarantee of trustworthiness.  It is furthermore – and this is crucial – not sourced from the personal knowledge of Chief Engineer Retardo.  It is rather based on the perception of  “ATTENDING SUPT. ENGINEERS CONSTANTLY OBSERVING ALL PERSONNELS ABILITY AND ATTITUDE WITH REGARDS TO OUR TECHNICAL CAPABILITY AND BEHAVIOURS WITH EMPHASY (sic) ON DISCIPLINE” who “NOTICED 3/E ROSAROSO AS BEING SLACK AND NOT CARING OF HIS JOB AND DUTIES X X X .”  Accordingly, the report is plain hearsay.  It is not backed up by the affidavit of any of the “Supt.” Engineers who purportedly had first-hand knowledge of private respondent’s supposed “lack of discipline,” “irresponsibility” and “lack of diligence” which caused him to lose his job.  x   x   x [12]             The Court finds no reason to reverse the foregoing findings.   To begin with, the question of whether respondent was dismissed for just cause is a question of fact which is beyond the province of a petition for review on certiorari.  It is fundamental that the scope of the Supreme Court’s judicial review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is confined only to errors of law.  It does not extend to questions of fact.  More so in labor cases where the doctrine applies with greater force.[13]    The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have already determined the factual issues, and these were affirmed by the CA.  Thus, they are accorded not only great respect but also finality,[14] and are deemed binding upon this Court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[15]  A heavy burden rests upon petitioner to convince the Court that it should take exception from such a settled rule.[16]   More importantly, the finding that respondent was illegally dismissed is supported, not only by the evidence on record, but by jurisprudence as well.