Aggrieved, petitioner filed with the CA a petition for certiorari but it was dismissed in its November 30, 2006 Decision.  The CA opined that the affirmative assertion of respondent that he paid petitioner a placement fee is entitled to great weight than the bare denials of petitioner; and, that respondent was made to believe that petitioner would be solely responsible for the processing of his employment abroad.               Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated September 12, 2007.   Issue               The lone issue in this petition for review on certiorari is whether petitioner is liable for non-issuance of receipt and misrepresentation.               Petitioner contends that the CA gravely abused its discretion in giving credence to respondent’s claims which were all anchored on bare allegations.  According to petitioner, the CA erred in ruling that its defense is purely denial since the same was corroborated by a document indubitably showing respondent’s withdrawal of his application for overseas employment. Considering such withdrawal, petitioner is naturally not bound to issue any receipt and could not as well be responsible for the recruitment of respondent.  Petitioner likewise asserts that it never asked or received any payment from the respondent.   Our Ruling               We grant the petition.                As a general rule, factual findings of administrative and quasi-judicial agencies specializing in their respective fields, especially when affirmed by the CA, must be accorded high respect, if not finality.[16]  However, we are not bound to adhere to the general rule if we find that the factual findings do not conform to the evidence on record or are not supported by substantial evidence,[17] as in the instant case.    The self-serving and unsubstantiated allegations of respondent cannot defeat the concrete evidence submitted by petitioner. We note that respondent did not deny the due