In   labor   cases,   as   in   other   administrative   proceedings,   only substantial  evidence  or  such  relevant  evidence  as   a  reasonable  mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion is required.^[50] To note, considering  that  substantial  evidence  is  an  evidentiary  threshold,  the Court, on exceptional cases, may assess the factual determinations made by the NLRC in a particular case. In Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Serna,^[51] the Court expressed the following view:

Accordingly, we do not re-examine conflicting evidence, re- evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or substitute the findings of fact of the NLRC, an administrative body that has expertise in its specialized field. Nor do we substitute our “own judgment for that of the tribunal in determining where the weight of evidence lies or what evidence is credible.” The factual findings of the NLRC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on this Court.

Nevertheless, there are exceptional cases where we, in the exercise of our discretionary appellate jurisdiction may be urged to look into factual issues raised in a Rule 45 petition. For instance, when the   petitioner   persuasively alleges   that   there   is   insufficient   or insubstantial evidence on record to support the factual findings of the tribunal or court a quo, as Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court states in express terms that in cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a  fact  may  be  deemed  established  only  if  supported  by substantialevidence.^[52] (Emphases supplied; citations omitted)

The evident conflict between the NLRC’s and CA’s factual findings as shown in the records of this case prompts the Court to sift through their respective  factual  determinations  if  only  to  determine  if  the  NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reaching its disposition, keeping in mind  that  the  latter’s  assessment  should  only  meet  the  threshold  of substantial evidence.