When CA finding NOT conclusive on the Supreme Court

In petitions for review on certiorari such as in the present case, the findings of fact of the CA are generally conclusive on this Court, save for the following admitted exceptions:

[1] the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory;
[2] the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;
[3] the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is mainly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
[4] there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;
[5] the appellate court, in making its findings, goes beyond the issues of the case and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
[6] the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on a misapprehension of facts;
[7] the Court of Appeals fails to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; and
[8] the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court or are mere conclusions without citation of specific evidence, or where the facts set forth by the petitioner are not disputed by respondent, or where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but are contradicted by the evidence on record. (G.R. No. 148516; December 27, 2007)