Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision^[1] dated September 13, 1999 and Resolution^[2] dated January 13, 2000 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 51454, entitled "G & M (Phil.) Inc., petitioner, v. National Labor Relations Commission and Zenas Rivera, respondents."

G & M (Phil.), Inc., petitioner, is a corporation engaged in the placement and recruitment business of overseas contract workers.  It deployed Lorenzo Rivera, respondent's husband, to work as equipment driver for its foreign principal, Mohammad Al-Hammad Recruiting Office in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia for a period of two (2) years.    After working for one 1 year, 7 months and 17 days, Lorenzo met an accident and died on December 23, 1993.

Respondent filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for unpaid salary differentials for her late husband alleging that he was not paid his salary for 23 days before he died.    She submitted a "Final Settlement of Liability of Foreign Employer" bearing the seal of the Philippine Embassy at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and translated into English by AL AMRI Translation Office.   The Final Settlement is quoted as follows:

Entitlement			Amount
1. Pending Leave Days			SR 570.00
	Months	Days
2. Severance Pay (service award)	19	17	SR 896.81
3. Unpaid Salary 23 days			SR 843.33
4. Death Compensation			__________
		TOTAL	SR 2,310.14

Respondent further claimed that her husband actually received only a monthly salary of SR 700, way below than that he ought to receive under his contract of employment which is US$ 600.

For its part, petitioner assailed the genuineness of the Final Settlement for lack of proper authentication.   It pointed out that petitioner's allegation that her husband received only a monthly salary of SR 700 is inconsistent with the claim for unpaid salaries as it is not possible for a worker receiving SR 700 per month to have unpaid salaries in the amount of SR 843.33 for  23 days.   It likewise questioned respondent's basis for filing the complaint, she not being a privy to her husband's working conditions while abroad.

In a Decision dated November 28, 1997, the Labor Arbiter ordered petitioner to pay respondent the following amounts:


On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) rendered a Decision on July 13, 1998 denying petitioner's appeal and affirming the Labor Arbiter's judgment. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated November 27, 1998.

Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals contending that the Labor Arbiter committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining respondent's claims.

In a Decision dated September 13, 1999, the Court of Appeals denied the petition, sustaining the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, thus:

The OCW INFO SHEET clearly states that the beneficiary of Lorenzo Rivera is his wife Zenas Rivera, hence, the complainant in this case is the real party in interest because "she stands to be benefited by the judgment in this suit or is the party entitled to the avails of the suit" (Salonga v. Warner, Barnes & Co., LTD., L-2246, Jan. 31, 1951).

In the same manner, the OCW INFO SHEET reveals that Lorenzo Rivera ought to receive US $600.00 basic monthly salary.  Since respondent's foreign principal keeps and maintains the employment records, it is therefore incumbent upon the respondent to produce the payrolls and vouchers to prove that complainant's deceased husband was duly paid of his basic monthly salary.   Accordingly, whether the "Final Settlement" adduced as supporting evidence by complainant is genuine or fake does not overcome the rule that the burden on labor standards claim rests upon the employer.

Failure therefore on the part of the respondent to offer such payrolls and vouchers to controvert complainant's claim for salary differentials is fatal.

The same ruling holds true with respect to claim for unpaid salary for 23 days. (p. 32, Rollo)

As to petitioner's allegation of inconsistency between the monthly salary of respondent's husband appearing in the OCW Information Sheet and the claim of respondent that her husband is still entitled to a salary of SR 843.33 for 23 days, the appellate court found that "this discrepancy is explained by the fact that aside from his monthly salary of SR 700, the deceased is still entitled to a monthly food allowance of SR 200 and monthly overtime pay of SR 200."

The Court of Appeals further held:

On the other hand, petitioner was the one who failed to show that complainant's husband has received the salary provided for under his OCW Info Sheet and OEC when the petitioner and its foreign principals were the ones who keep and maintain the employment document of the deceased Rivera, such as the payrolls, the vouchers and were in the best position to show that indeed the deceased received his monthly salary of US $600.00 as per POEA approved contract.

Petitioner even failed to present any document/evidence to show/prove its contention of payment so, in the absence of such evidence, it can be safely concluded that the deceased was not paid his monthly salary as per POEA approved contract and his unpaid salaries were not given to him.

Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review alleging that: (1) the Court of Appeals gravely erred in applying the rule on "burden of proof" against petitioner inasmuch as non-payment of salaries, as claimed by respondent was not sufficiently shown; and in holding that there is no inconsistency between the salary of petitioner's husband appearing in the OCW Information Sheet and in the Final Settlement considering that no evidence supports such conclusion.

The issues raised are essentially factual.   Elementary is the principle that this Court is not a trier of facts.   Judicial review of labor cases does not go beyond the evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which its labor officials' findings rest.   As such, the findings of fact and conclusion of the NLRC are generally accorded not only great weight and respect but even clothed with finality and deemed binding on this Court as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.^[3]   This is because it is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below; or reevaluate the credibility of witnesses; or substitute the findings of fact of an administrative tribunal which has expertise in its special field.   In this case, we defer to the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, who is deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within his jurisdiction, specially since his findings were affirmed in toto by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals.^[4]

While there are recognized exceptions to this rule, we found no grounds to warrant our departure from the common findings of the three tribunals below.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 51454.   Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Puno C.J., (Chairperson), Corona, Azcuna, and Garcia, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Penned by Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole, and concurred in by Associate Justice Ramon A. Barcelona and Associate Justice Demetrio G. Demetria (all retired), Annex "A" of the petition, Rollo, pp. 20-27.

^[2] Annex "B" of the petition, id., pp. 28-30.

^[3] Association of Integrated Security Force of Bislig (AISFB-ALU) v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140150, August 22, 2005, 467 SCRA 483.

^[4] Bolinao Security and Investigation, Inc. v. Toston, G.R. No. 139135, January 29, 2004, 421 SCRA 406; Urbanes, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138379, November 25, 2004, 444 SCRA 84.