8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [37] Id. at 57-60. [38] Rollo, pp. 62-65. [39] Id. at 67. [40] Id. at 20-24. [41] Id. at 26. [42] Id. at 26-32. [43] Id. at 32-35. [44] Id. at 538-540; CA rollo, pp. 213-221. [45] Rollo, pp. 506-512. [46] 752 Phil. 232 (2015), citing Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc., et al. v. Munar, 702 Phil. 717, 730-731 (2013). [47] Id. at 243-244. [48] Rollo, pp. 518-523. [49] Id. at 552-556. [50] De Leon v. Maunlad Trans, Inc., et al., 805 Phil. 531, 539 (2017). [51] C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc., et al. v. Legal Heirs of the Late Godofredo Repiso, 780 Phil. 645, 665 (2016), citing Litonjua, Jr. v. Eternit Corporation, 523 Phil. 588, 605 (2006). [52] 1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is 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) when 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 Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65335 21/24