Goodfeather Corporation, through its President, Al Pakino, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint for specific performance against Robert White. Instead of filing an answer to the complaint, Robert White filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of the appropriate board resolution from the Board of Directors of Goodfeather Corporation to show the authority of Al Pakino to represent the corporation and file the complaint in its behalf. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss and, accordingly, it ordered the dismissal of the complaint. Al Pakino filed a motion for reconsideration which the RTC denied. As nothing more could be done by Al Pakino before the RTC, he filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA). Robert White moved for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the same involved purely a question of law and should have been filed with the Supreme Court (SC). However, Al Pakino claimed that the appeal involved mixed questions of fact and law because there must be a factual determination if, indeed, Al Pakino was duly authorized by Goodfeather Corporation to file the complaint. Whose position is correct? Explain. (4%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Al Pakino's position is correct. The appeal involves mixed questions of fact and law, making the ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals proper. Under Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, an ordinary appeal to the Court of
Unlock the full Remedial Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
What distinguishes a question of fact from a question of law in remedial law?
A question of fact involves evaluating the truth or probative value of evidence presented.
Which court has appellate jurisdiction over an RTC judgment involving mixed questions of fact and law?
Ordinary appeals involving mixed questions of fact and law from the RTC are taken to the Court of Appeals.
Why does challenging a corporate president's authority to file a complaint raise a question of fact?
Determining whether a corporate officer had authority requires examining corporate documents and evidence.
What is the proper procedural remedy to appeal an RTC decision raising purely questions of law?
Choices available with full access.
How does a corporation validly authorize an officer to file a civil action on its behalf?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Question of Fact
A question of fact exists when there is doubt or controversy as to the truth or falsity of alleged facts or when the query invites calibration of the evidence, including the determination of the credibility of witnesses and the probative value of proof. In contrast, a question of law involves no examination of the probative value of evidence and arises strictly when the doubt centers on the correct application of law or jurisprudence to an undisputed set of facts. When resolving an issue requires inspecting supporting documents or evaluating evidentiary proof, it presents a question of fact.
2. Corporate Representation Authority
A corporation exercises its powers through its board of directors, and no individual officer can bind the corporation without express authority conferred by law, the corporate by-laws, or a specific board resolution. When the authority of a corporate officer such as the company president to initiate a legal action on behalf of the corporation is challenged, determining whether proper authorization exists requires examining corporate records, secretary's certificates, or board resolutions. Consequently, determining whether an officer possessed actual or apparent authority to file a complaint presents a factual issue requiring evidence evaluation.
3. Rule 41 Appeal
Under Rule 41, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, an ordinary appeal from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals is the proper remedy to review final judgments or orders in the exercise of its original jurisdiction where the appeal raises questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. Appeals involving purely questions of law must be taken directly to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Where an appeal raises both legal principles and factual determinations, an ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals is procedurally correct.