The Ruling of the Court of Appeals               On 15 March 2002, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment as follows:               WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the NLRC dated June 11, 1998, as well as its Resolution of February 3, 1999is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.  In lieu thereof, the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated December 26, 1996 is hereby REINSTATED.               SO ORDERED.[17]               The Court of Appeals ruled that, contrary to the view of the NLRC, the fact that Anita “had a second thought about her position as a caretaker or domestic helper as it was not the position she applied for, was not pregnant of bold manifestation that in fact she had difficulty in adjusting herself to the nature of her accepted position.”  The Court of Appeals stated that neither would Anita’s “second thoughts” bolster petitioner’s allegation that Anita “misrepresented to her foreign employer that she knows the house chores.”             The Court of Appeals held that petitioner’s allegation that Anita did not know her job was incredible.  The Court of Appeals stated that the nature of the work given to Anita “such as car-washing the vehicle of her master, cooking the meals, housecleaning and babysitting, was too simple and menial for an ordinary person of average intelligence to easily learn, especially so for Anita, who is a registered midwife and a family woman.”  The Court of Appeals ruled that even granting that Anita did not know her job, petitioner, who had the duty to evaluate her qualification, should have rejected her application outright.             The Court of Appeals also ruled that if there is doubt on the credibility of the evidence presented by the parties, the doubt should be resolved in Anita’s