This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2008-12-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The settled rule is that issues of fact are not proper subjects of a petition for review before this Court.[17] Nonetheless, there are recognized exceptions to this rule, among which are: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the CA are contrary to the findings of the trial court; (9) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[18] The Court finds that petitioner was able to demonstrate that the instant case falls under the fourth exception as will be discussed forthwith. | |||||