the Decision now assailed before us, the Court of Appeals dismissed his Petition for Certiorariwith the decretal portion of the Decision stating:               WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the instant petition is DISMISSED.[10]               In sustaining the NLRC, the Court of Appeals stated that petitioner’s arguments were a mere reiteration of those he earlier presented before the NLRC and which were already passed upon by the latter.[11]  The Court of Appeals also held that petitioner failed to present any basis to support his argument that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in resolving the case in favor of respondent Skills International.[12]   Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but this was denied;[13] hence, the present recourse where petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in its findings that:   a.)        There is no formal, valid and signed contract of employment that binds the petitioner and the private respondents;   b.)        Petitioner was hired directly by his foreign employer and was processed as a Balik-Manggagawa; and   c.)        Petitioner did not pay any placement fee and he did not mention that he was deducted placement fee by the respondent [Skills International].[14]     Petitioner claims that the relationship between Wallan Al Wallan and respondent Skills International was sufficiently established when the latter stated in its Position Paper that it was in its office in Malate, Manila, where petitioner met his new employer.  Petitioner insists that if Wallan Al Wallan were not an accredited principal of respondent Skills International, then he had no business being in the latter’s office.  But since as petitioner and Wallan Al Wallan met each other within the confines of respondent Skills International’s office, it can be said that respondent Skills International had a hand in their meeting.  More than this, it was respondent Skills International which handled his deployment for work abroad as a balik-manggagawa.