5/3/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly "SO ORDERED."[8] Hence, on August 31, 1995, petitioners Ban Hua Uy Flores, Ban Ha Uy Chua and Soon Kee Commercial, Inc. filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari.[9] In the meantime, respondent Johnny Uy filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for reconsideration of the decision.[10] On March 6, 1996, the Court of Appeals denied respondent Johnny Uy's motion for reconsideration.[11] Hence, on May 13, 1996, respondent Johnny Uy filed with the Supreme Court a separate petition.[12] The Issues 1. Whether respondent Johnny K. H. Uy was the sole owner of the US$100,000.00 investment of the Uy family in the Hongfil Shipping Corporation; and 2. Whether damages may be assessed against respondent Johnny K. H. Uy and awarded in favor of petitioners. The Court's Ruling The first issue is factual. In an appeal via certiorari, we may not review the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals.[13] When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by the Court,[14] unless the case falls under any of the exceptions to the rule.[15] Petitioner has not shown that the case falls within the exceptions.[16] The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.[17] It is not our function to review, examine and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented.[18] A question of fact would arise in such event.[19] Questions of fact cannot be raised in an appeal via certiorari before the Supreme Court and are not proper for its consideration.[20] On the second issue, we find it reasonable to conclude that petitioners Ban Hua Uy Flores, et al. need not have spent a great deal of money if respondent Johnny Uy did not make a false claim on the Uy family investment of US$100,000.00, in the Hongfil Shipping Corporation. Hence, the protracted trial of the case necessitated the expenditures incurred by petitioner Ban Hua Uy Flores, et al. Actual damages may therefore be assessed against respondent Johnny Uy. The actual https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52802 7/11