6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Petitioners also argue that SAENCO would not risk its status as a reputable entertainment and promotional entity by violating South Korean labor law. Petitioners assert that in the absence of any showing that SAENCO was at anytime charged with nonpayment of its employee's salaries before the Labor Ministry of South Korea, petitioners could not be deemed to have breached the Employment Contract with respondent. Petitioners describe respondent's complaint as plain harassment. Thus, petitioners pray that the Court nullify the Decision dated November 27, 2009 and Resolution dated February 16, 2010 of the Court of Appeals. The Petition is partly meritorious. Questions of Fact It is apparent from a perusal of the Petition at bar that it essentially raises questions of fact. Petitioners assail the findings of the Court of Appeals on the ground that the evidence on record does not support respondent's claims of illegal dismissal and nonpayment of salaries. In effect, petitioners would have the Court sift through, calibrate, and re-examine the credibility and probative value of the evidence on record so as to ultimately decide whether or not there is sufficient basis to hold petitioners liable for the payment of respondent's salaries for one year, plus attorney's fees.[37] Normally, it is not the task of the Court to re-examine the facts and weigh the evidence on record, for basic is the rule that the Court is not a trier of facts, and this rule applies with greater force in labor cases. Questions of fact are for the labor tribunals to resolve. It is elementary that the scope of this Court's judicial review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is confined only to errors of law and does not extend to questions of fact. However, the present case falls under one of the recognized exceptions to the rule, i.e., when the findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and/or the Court of Appeals are in conflict with one another. The conflicting findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the Court of Appeals pave the way for this Court to review factual issues even if it is exercising its function of judicial review under Rule 45.[38] As the Court reviews the evidence on record, it notes at the outset that petitioners are presenting new evidence herein never presented in the previous proceedings, particularly, Park's notarized "Reply" dated January 11, 2010 and the attached Entertainer Wage Roster. The Court is precluded from considering and giving weight to said evidence which are presented for the first time on appeal. Fairness and due process dictate that evidence and issues not presented below cannot be taken up for the first time on appeal.[39] It is true that the Court had declared in previous cases that strict adherence to the technical rules of procedure is not required in labor cases. However, the Court also highlights that in such cases, it had allowed the submission of evidence for the first time on appeal with the NLRC in the interest of substantial justice, and had further required for the liberal application of procedural rules that the party should adequately explain the delay in the submission of evidence and should sufficiently prove the allegations sought to be proven.[40] In the instant case, petitioners did not submit the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64155 15/27