E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 15 of 40 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65160 For the certification against forum shopping, Altres stated the general rule that nonsigning petitioners will be dropped as parties to the case. Nonetheless, there is an exception: when all petitioners share a common interest, the signature of one (1) petitioner in the certification against forum shopping is enough to satisfy the substantial compliance rule.[97] Here, petitioners all share earth-balling of the trees signature of 30 petitioners substantial compliance with a common interest, which is to declare the cutting or affected by the Expansion Project illegal. Hence, the to the certification against forum shopping amounts to the requirement under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. II It is well-established that a review of appeals filed before this Court is "not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion[.]"[98] The Rules of Court requires that only questions of law should be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45,[99] as factual questions are not the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari. It is not this Court's function to weigh all over again evidence that were already considered in the lower courts.[100] However, these rules do admit of 10 exceptions, as listed in Medina v. Mayor Asistio, Jr.:[101] (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures . . .; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible . . .; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion . . .; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts . . .; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting . . .; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee . . .; (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court. . .; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based . . .; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents . . .; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record . . . .[102] (Citations omitted) Pascual v. Burgos[103] instructs that parties must prove with convincing evidence that their case clearly falls under the exceptions to the rule: 4/23/2020, 10:52 AM