The Philippines' Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and as a general rule it defers to the appreciation and evaluation of the evidence by the lower court. This rule, however, is not absolute and admits of exceptions such as in the following instances: (i) when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory, (ii) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures, (iii) when the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its finding of facts is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible, (iv) when there is a grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts, (v) when the Appellate Court, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee, (vi) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on a misapprehension of facts, (vii) when the Court of Appeals failed to notice certain relevant facts which if properly considered would justify a different conclusion, (viii) when the findings of fact are themselves conflicting; (ix) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which they are based, and (x) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record.
