This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2011-04-04 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Only questions of law are allowed in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Thus, it is not our duty "to review, examine, and evaluate or weigh all over again the probative value of the evidence presented,"[63] especially where the findings of both the trial court and the appellate court coincide on the matter.[64] As we have often said, factual findings of the CA affirming those of the RTC are conclusive and binding, except in the following cases: "(1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the [CA] is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the [CA], in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (7) when the [CA] manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (8) when the findings of fact of the [CA] are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record."[65] None of these are availing in the present case. | |||||