110.

NINOBLA JOEL VAN R REMEDIAL LAW (RECAP) 10/22/22

QUESTION

Good feather 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 Good feather 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 AlM Pakino before the RTC, he filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals
(CA). Robert White moved for dismissal of the appeal in 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 Good feather Corporation to file the complaint. Whose position is
correct? Explain. (2014 Bar)

ANSWER

Al Pakino is correct in claiming that the appeal involved mixed questions of fact and
law. There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a
certain state of facts. On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or
difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts.

Since the complaint was dismissed due to the alleged lack of appropriate board
resolution from the Board of Directors of Good feather Corporation, the appeal will
necessarily involve a factual determination of the authority to file the Complaint for the said
Corporation. Hence, the appeal before the Court of Appeals is correct.