This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-02-06 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In addition, the issue regarding the date of maturity of the loan is factual and settled is the rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.[15] It is not the function of this Court to review, examine and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented.[16] While there are also exceptions to this rule such as when the factual findings of the trial court and the CA are contradictory; when the inference made by the CA is manifestly mistaken or absurd; when the judgment of the CA is premised on its misapprehension of facts; and, when the CA failed to resolve relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a modification or reversal of the decision of the appellate court,[17] this Court finds that the present case does not fall under any of these exceptions. | |||||