In this regard, it may be worth to emphasize that only substantial evidence, not necessarily clear and convincing evidence, is required.

The seeming discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses (one saying the money was wrapped in paper, the other, that the money was in an envelope; neither testified on the specific date of the exaction), refers only to minor details. Perhaps it would be different if the variance refers to essential points, e.g., whether the amount of P30,000.00 was actually paid by petitioners to private respondents. Consequently, whether the money was wrapped in paper, or placed in an envelope, or unwrapped, or whether the parties could not recall when the payment was effected is unimportant. After all, the money could have been wrapped in paper and placed in the envelope, or placed in the envelope without being wrapped, or wrapped with use of an unpasted envelope that appeared to be the envelope itself. In either case, petitioners could have viewed them differently; but the difference is ultimately inconsequential. The crucial point to consider is that the petitioners categorically and unequivocally testified that respondents collected from them the amount of P30,000.00 as their placement fees and that they paid the amount demanded. In this regard, it may be worth to emphasize that only substantial evidence, not necessarily clear and convincing evidence, is required. Moreover, when confronted with conflicting assertions, the rule that "as between a positive and categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail x x x x"^[17] applies.

SPOUSES VICENTE AND GLORIA MANALO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, IN HER CAPACITY AS UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, JOSE SARMIENTO AS POEA ADMINISTRATOR, CAREER PLANNERS SPECIALISTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND SPOUSES VICTOR, AND ELNORA FERNANDEZ, RESPONDENTS.