6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly (1) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) When there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;[17] (6) When in making its 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 that of 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; or (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.[18] Normally, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. However, since the findings of the CA and the NLRC were conflicting, it is incumbent upon this Court to wade through the records to find out if there was enough basis for the CA’s reversal of the NLRC decision. In this case, the CA ruled out the commission by seaman Glicerio of suicide on the ground that the evidence presented by petitioners, such as the Medico-Legal Report and Death Certificate, did not state the circumstances regarding the cause of seaman Glicerio’s death. Also, the CA held that the Investigation Report, log book extracts, and Master’s Report were submitted for the first time on appeal to the NLRC, and thus, should not have been admitted by the NLRC. First, this Court would like to underline the fact that the NLRC may receive evidence submitted for the first time on appeal on the ground that it may ascertain facts objectively and speedily without regard to technicalities of law in the interest of substantial justice. In Sasan, Sr. v. National Labor Relations Commission 4th Division,[19] We held that our jurisprudence is replete with cases allowing the NLRC to admit evidence, not presented before the Labor Arbiter, and submitted to the NLRC for the first time on appeal. The submission of additional evidence before the NLRC is not prohibited by its New Rules of Procedure considering that rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity are not controlling in labor cases. The NLRC and Labor Arbiters are directed to use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law and procedure all in the interest of substantial justice. In keeping with this directive, it has been held that the NLRC may consider evidence, such as documents and affidavits, submitted by the parties for the first time on appeal.[20] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58912 7/12