FERNANDO SANTOS,petitioner,vs.SPOUSES ARSENIO and NIEVES REYES, respondents.PANGANIBAN, J.:As a general rule, the factual findings of the Court of Appeals affirming those of thetrial court are binding on the Supreme Court. However, there are several exceptionsto this principle. In the present case, we find occasion to apply both the rule andone of the exceptions.The CaseBefore us is a etition for !eview on Certiorariassailing the "ovember #$, %&&'(ecision,%as well as the August %', %&&$ and the )ctober &, %&&$ !esolutions,#issued by the Court of Appeals *CA+ in CA,-! C. "o. /0'0#. 1he Assailed (ecisiondisposed as follows234H5!56)!5, thedecisionappealedfromis A66I!75(saveas for thecounterclaim which is hereby (IS7ISS5(. Costs against 8petitioner9.3/!esolvingrespondent:s 7otionfor !econsideration, the August %', %&&$!esolution ruled as follows2 34H5!56)!5, 8respondents:9 motion for reconsideration is -!A"15(.Accordingly, the court:s decision dated "ovember #$, %&&' is hereby7)(I6I5( in that the decision appealed from is A66I!75( in toto, with costsagainst 8petitioner9.301he )ctober &, %&&$ !esolution denied 3for lac; of merit3 petitioner:s 7otion for!econsideration of the August %', %&&$ !esolution.une, %&$?, 8etitioner96ernandoSantosand8!espondent9"ieves !eyes were introduced to each other by one 7eliton @abat regarding alendingbusiness venture proposedby"ieves.Itwasverballyagreedthat8petitionerwould9act asfinancierwhile8"ieves9and@abat 8would9ta;echarge of solicitationof members andcollectionof loanpayments. 1heventure was launched on >une %/, %&$?, with the understanding that8petitioner9 would receive 'AB of the profits while x x x "ieves and @abatwould earn %uly, %&$?, x x x "ieves introduced Cesar -ragera to 8petitioner9.-ragera, as chairman of the 7onte 7aria (evelopment Corporation?*7onte7aria, for brevity+, sought short,term loans for members of the corporation.8etitioner9 and -ragera executed an agreement providing funds for 7onte7aria:s members. Cnder the agreement, 7onte 7aria, represented by-ragera, was entitled to %./% commission per thousand paid daily to8petitioner9 *5xh. :A:+xxx. "ieves;ept theboo;sasrepresentativeof8petitioner9 while 8!espondent9 Arsenio, husband of "ieves, acted as creditinvestigator.3)nAugust ?, %&$?, 8petitioner9,xxx8"ieves9and@abat executedthe:Article of Agreement: which formali=ed their earlier verbal arrangement.38etitioner9 and 8"ieves9 later discovered that their partner @abat engagedin the same lending business in competition with their partnership8.9 @abatwas thereby expelled from the partnership. 1he operations with 7onte 7ariacontinued.3)n >une uly %#, %&$? to 7arch #', %&$',inthetotal amount of #