E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 16 of 40 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65160 Parties praying that this court review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals must demonstrate and prove that the case clearly falls under the exceptions to the rule. They have the burden of proving to this court that a review of the factual findings is necessary. Mere assertion and claim that the case falls under the exceptions do not suffice.[104] Here, petitioners claim that the issuance of a zoning clearance was tainted with irregularity, maintaining that a regional mall like SM City Baguio and its Expansion Project should not have been allowed in a low-density commercial zone like Luneta Hill. Rather, the mall belonged in a high-density commercial zone, while the parking building belonged in a medium-density commercial zone.[105] Furthermore, petitioners stress that private respondents were not authorized to cut and earth-ball the trees as they failed to obtain a separate environmental compliance certificate or conduct an environmental impact assessment before felling the trees.[106] Upon careful review, this Court finds that this case falls under the exceptions in Medina, particularly: "(4) [w]hen the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts";[107] and "(8) [w]hen the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based[.]"[108] III Petitioners assert that since they were never made parties to the application for the amended Environmental Compliance Certificate, they are not bound by the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. Both private[109] and public respondents[110] claim otherwise. Respondents are mistaken. The general rule is to first exhaust the available administrative remedies before a party can bring the case to a court for judicial review."[111] In connection with the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Under this doctrine, courts will hold off from determining a controversy involving a question within the jurisdiction of an administrative agency, particularly when its resolution demands the "special knowledge, experience[,] and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact."[112] However, Pagara v. Court of Appeals[113] emphasized that the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a hard and fast rule. It may be disregarded when any of the following exceptions are present: 4/23/2020, 10:52 AM