II.                        Whether the ground of incompetence as a just cause for a valid dismissal has been proven by substantial evidence.                   III.                        Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its findings that there was noncompliance with the two-notice requirement in effecting a valid dismissal as mandated by the Labor Code, as amended.   IV.                        Whether the respondents are entitled to indemnity equivalent to the unexpired portion of their employment contract.                              Although as a rule, only legal issues may be raised in a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Court is not precluded from delving into and resolving issues of facts,[23] particularly if the findings of the Labor Arbiter are inconsistent with those of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals; if the findings of the NLRC and the appellate court are contrary to the evidence and the record; and in order to give substantial justice to the parties.[24]               In this case, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC en banc ruled that the respondents were validly dismissed by the petitioners because of incompetence in performing their duties and responsibilities.  In effecting such dismissal, the petitioners complied substantially with the two-notice requirement for procedural due process in labor cases.  However, the Court of Appeals stated in its27 July 2004 Decision that the respondents’ alleged incompetence if any, was not properly proven, and these remained plain allegations without any proof to substantiate the same.  Furthermore, petitioners   failed to comply with the two-notice requirement in effecting a valid dismissal.  Since there are conflicts in the findings of the Court of Appeals, on one hand, and the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, on the other, it is incumbent upon this Court to resolve the issues of fact in order to give substantial justice to both parties.  Hence, this Court can take cognizance of this Petition.             The general rule is that, factual findings of the NLRC, particularly where the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter are in agreement, are deemed binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court.[25]  Such factual findings of labor officials are conclusive and binding when supported by substantial evidence, meaning, that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[26]  Thus, the Supreme Court will not uphold erroneous conclusions of the NLRC as when it finds insufficient or insubstantial evidence on record to