Issues Cognizable

Issues Cognizable in Appeal and Review

An appeal or review brings before the higher court only those issues that fall within the mode of review invoked, the jurisdiction of the reviewing court, and the matters properly raised by the parties. It is a continuation of the original action, but it is not a second trial where parties may freely change theories, add claims, or supply evidence omitted below.

The appellate court generally reviews the judgment, final order, or appealed disposition on the basis of the record made before the court or tribunal of origin. The nature of the issue controls whether it may be examined as a question of fact, a question of law, or a mixed question, and the chosen remedy must match that nature.

Question of Law, Question of Fact, and Mixed Question

A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns what the law is on a given set of facts. The reviewing court does not need to examine the probative value of evidence; it decides whether the legal conclusion drawn from admitted or established facts is correct.

A question of fact exists when the issue requires a review of the truth or falsity of alleged facts, the weight of evidence, the credibility of witnesses, or the existence of a fact from the proofs presented. Reweighing evidence, comparing testimonies, and resolving factual inferences are factual inquiries.

A mixed question of fact and law arises when the facts are disputed, or when the legal consequence depends on the appreciation of evidence and the application of law to those facts. Many civil appeals contain mixed issues because liability, damages, jurisdictional facts, prescription, and compliance with procedural requirements may depend on both law and evidence.

Mode of Appeal Determines the Reviewable Issues

The Rules of Court make the remedy mode-specific. An appeal by notice of appeal from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals is appropriate when factual or mixed issues are involved. If the appeal from the Regional Trial Court involves only questions of law, the proper mode is a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.

A petition for review under the rules governing review of Regional Trial Court appellate decisions allows the Court of Appeals to examine whether the Regional Trial Court, acting as an appellate court, committed reversible error. Because the review is discretionary, the petition must itself identify the material issues and show why the judgment should be disturbed.

A petition for review of a quasi-judicial decision allows the Court of Appeals to pass upon factual, legal, or mixed issues within the statutory or rule-based scope of review. The court may determine whether the agency observed due process, acted within its authority, applied the correct law, and based its findings on substantial evidence.

A petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court is confined to questions of law. It is not a vehicle for a routine reappraisal of testimony, documents, expert conclusions, or damages, because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts in ordinary civil review.

Issues Raised, Assigned, and Argued

The reviewing court ordinarily considers only errors specifically assigned and properly argued. The assignment of errors and the issues stated in the petition or brief define the controversy presented for review and give the appellee or respondent fair notice of what must be answered.

An unassigned error may still be considered when it affects jurisdiction over the subject matter, the validity of the judgment, or the validity of the proceedings. The reviewing court may also consider an issue that is closely related to, dependent on, or necessary for resolving an assigned error, because appellate review is not defeated by imperfect wording when the real issue is fairly joined.

Plain errors and clerical errors may be corrected when apparent from the record and when correction is needed to make the judgment conform to law or to what was actually adjudicated. The power is corrective, not an invitation to decide unrelated controversies that the parties never submitted.

The appellee may defend the judgment on any ground supported by the record, even if the trial court relied on a different reason. However, an appellee who did not appeal generally cannot obtain affirmative relief, an increased award, or a modification more favorable than the judgment appealed from.

Issues Not Raised Below

As a rule, a party may not raise for the first time on appeal an issue, theory, defense, or factual matter that was not presented to the court of origin. The rule rests on fairness, because the adverse party must have an opportunity to meet the issue with evidence and argument before judgment.

A party who tried the case on one theory cannot shift to an inconsistent theory on appeal when doing so would change the factual basis of the action or defense. Appellate review corrects errors committed on the issues submitted below; it does not cure a party's failure to plead, prove, or timely argue a matter within that party's burden.

The rule against new issues does not bar consideration of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, because such jurisdiction is conferred only by law and may be noticed even on appeal. In contrast, objections to jurisdiction over the person, venue, improper service that was waived by voluntary appearance, and other personal defenses may be lost by failure to timely invoke them.

The appellate court may consider supervening events when they are admitted, undisputed, or capable of clear determination from the record and when ignoring them would result in an unjust, useless, or unenforceable judgment. This power is exceptional and does not permit reception of contested evidence as though the appeal were an original proceeding.

Interlocutory Orders Reviewed After Judgment

Interlocutory orders are generally not appealable while the case is pending, but errors in such orders may be assigned in the appeal from the final judgment if they affected the outcome or the regularity of the proceedings. Denials of motions to dismiss, evidentiary rulings, discovery rulings, amendments of pleadings, default orders, and other provisional rulings may therefore become cognizable when the final judgment is reviewed.

The appeal from the final judgment opens for review prior rulings that are inseparable from the judgment and properly preserved in the record. It does not revive waived objections, cure failure to object when an objection was required, or authorize review of matters already made final by a separate appealable disposition.

Review of Factual Findings

In an ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals, factual findings of the trial court may be reviewed because the appellate court has authority to examine the evidence in the record. Even so, findings based on witness credibility are accorded great respect because the trial judge directly observed the witnesses and their manner of testifying.

The Court of Appeals may reverse or modify factual findings when the record shows that the trial court overlooked material facts, misappreciated evidence, relied on inadmissible or insufficient proof, drew conclusions contrary to the evidence, or made findings incompatible with admissions, stipulations, or documents of record.

When the case reaches the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari, factual findings of the Court of Appeals are generally binding. Review of facts is exceptional, such as when the findings are conflicting, speculative, plainly mistaken, unsupported by the record, based on a misapprehension of facts, contrary to the trial court's findings without adequate basis, or when material evidence was overlooked and would affect the result.

Findings of administrative or quasi-judicial bodies are respected when supported by substantial evidence, especially on matters within their competence. The Court of Appeals may still review whether substantial evidence exists, whether due process was observed, whether the agency correctly applied the law, and whether the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, or beyond its authority.

Legal Issues Always Within Proper Review

When properly raised under the correct mode, appellate courts may review whether the lower court applied the correct substantive law, interpreted the rules correctly, respected due process, properly determined jurisdiction, and rendered a judgment supported by the pleadings and evidence.

Legal errors include applying the wrong law, misinterpreting a procedural rule, granting relief not prayed for or beyond the pleadings, enforcing a void judgment, ignoring a mandatory condition for the action, disregarding res judicata, prescription, litis pendentia, forum shopping consequences, or other matters that determine whether the case could validly proceed.

Errors in the award of damages may involve both law and fact. The existence of factual basis, causal connection, and evidentiary support may be factual; the availability of the kind of damages, the need for pleading or proof, and the legal standards for awarding attorney's fees, moral damages, exemplary damages, interest, and costs may be legal.

Relief Limited by the Appeal

An appellate court may affirm, reverse, modify, or remand within the issues cognizable on appeal and the relief warranted by the record. It may render the judgment that the lower court should have rendered when the facts are sufficient, or remand when essential factual matters must first be resolved by the proper court.

A party who does not appeal is generally bound by the judgment as to that party. Nevertheless, a reversal may benefit a non-appealing party when the rights and liabilities of the parties are so interwoven or inseparable that relief to the appealing party necessarily affects the non-appealing party, or when the ground for reversal is common to all and inconsistent judgments would result.

The appellate court cannot grant relief on a claim outside the pleadings, impose liability on a theory never tried by consent, or adjudicate rights of persons who were not parties and had no opportunity to be heard. Appellate power is broad enough to correct reversible error, but it remains bounded by jurisdiction, due process, the record, and the issues properly brought up for review.

Non-Cognizable Matters

• New factual issues requiring evidence not presented below are generally not cognizable on appeal.
• Pure factual issues are generally not cognizable in a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.
• Matters outside the record, including documents not offered or admitted when evidence was required, are generally not considered.
• Errors not assigned, not argued, and not related to any assigned error are generally disregarded unless they affect jurisdiction, validity, plain error, or clerical correction.
• Affirmative relief in favor of a non-appealing appellee is generally unavailable.
• Collateral attacks on matters not embraced in the judgment appealed from are generally outside appellate review.
• Moot issues are generally not decided unless an exception justifies resolution because the issue is capable of repetition, involves public interest, affects rights despite apparent mootness, or requires guidance to prevent recurring error.

Effect of Choosing the Wrong Mode

Because issue cognizability depends on the mode of review, using the wrong remedy may be fatal. A party who raises factual issues in a petition for review on certiorari asks the Supreme Court to perform a function generally outside that remedy, while a party who brings only legal issues to the Court of Appeals from a Regional Trial Court judgment may have chosen the wrong appellate route.

The reviewing court may dismiss an improper appeal, deny a petition for failure to show reversible error, or in exceptional circumstances treat the remedy as the proper one when the interests of justice and the rules permit. Such liberality is discretionary and cannot be invoked to defeat jurisdictional requirements, periods of appeal, or the orderly allocation of appellate functions.

Practical Reach of Appellate Review

The central inquiry is whether the alleged error is within the reviewing court's lawful power to examine, was preserved or fairly included in the issues, appears in the record, and can be resolved without violating due process. If these conditions are present, the issue is cognizable even if the lower court did not discuss it extensively.

If the issue requires facts not in the record, seeks relief beyond the appeal, changes the theory of the case, or belongs to a different mode of review, it is generally non-cognizable. Appellate review corrects error; it does not reopen litigation beyond the limits fixed by the judgment appealed from, the record, the rules, and the parties' properly presented issues.