5/3/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly like to reply to you within fifteen (15) days.”[13] The Court of Appeals observed that if indeed there were no consultancy agreement, it would have been easy for petitioners to simply deny respondent’s claim. Yet, they did not do so. The conglomeration of these circumstances bolstered the existence of the oral consultancy agreement. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: “WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.”[14] Hence, this appeal.[15] In this appeal, petitioners raise the following issues: (1) whether or not there was a consultancy agreement between petitioners and respondent; and corollary to this, (2) whether or not respondent is entitled to receive a commission if there was, in fact, a consultancy agreement.[16] We find the appeal meritorious. In deciding this appeal, we rely on the rule that a party who has the burden of proof in a civil case must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.[17] When the evidence of the parties is in equipoise, or when there is a doubt as to where the preponderance of evidence lies, the party with the burden of proof fails and the petition must thus be denied.[18] As a general rule, factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and are not reviewed by the Supreme Court—and they carry even more weight when the Court of Appeals affirmed the factual findings of the trial court. It is not the function of the Supreme Court to weigh anew the evidence passed upon by the Court of Appeals.[19] Moreover, only questions of law may be raised before the Supreme Court in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.[20] However, the rule is subject to exceptions,[21] such as when the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises, or conjectures,[22] as in the instant case. An assiduous scrutiny of the testimonial and documentary evidence extant leads us to the conclusion that the evidence could not support a solid conclusion that a consultancy agreement, oral or written, was agreed between petitioners and respondent. Respondent attempted to fortify his own testimony by presenting several corroborative witnesses. However, what was apparent in the testimonies of these witnesses was the fact that they learned about the existence of the consultancy agreement only because that was what respondent told them.[23] In civil cases, he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it; a mere allegation is not evidence.[24] He must establish his cause by a preponderance of evidence,[25] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52501 4/10