3/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [20] See id. at 112-113. [21] See id. at 115-117. [22] See id. at 118-119. [23] See motion for reconsideration dated March 31, 2017; id. at 475-490. [24] Id. at 123-129. [25] Dated July 20, 2017. Id. at 75-100. [26] Id. at 60-69. [27] Id. at 68. [28] Id. at 64-68. [29] Id. at 68. [30] See motion for reconsideration of HSTC and Esguerra dated May 17, 2018; rollo (G.R. No. 244144), pp. 906-938. See motion for partial reconsideration of Cordero dated May 17, 2018; id. at 941-946. [31] See id. at 909-923. [32] See id. at 942-944. [33] Rollo (G.R. No. 244144), pp. 71-74. [34] Heirs of Teresita Montoya v. National Housing Authority, 730 Phil. 120, 132-133 (2014). [35] In Naguit v. San Miguel Corporation, 761 Phil. 184, 193 (2015), the Court noted the following exceptions to the general rule that questions of fact can no longer be raised in a Rule 45 petition: "(1) the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misappreciation of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) in making its findings, the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record." [36] Rollo (G.R. No. 244144), p. 73. [37] 725 Phil. 513 (2014). https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65989 8/9