Short answer. Yes. Rule 43, Section 3 allows an appeal to the Court of Appeals under the Rule whether it involves questions of fact, questions of law, or mixed questions of fact and law, unlike some other modes of appeal that are limited strictly to legal issues.

What the law says

An appeal under this Rule may be taken to the Court of Appeals within the period and in the manner herein provided, whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law.

Rule 43, Section 3 — Where to appeal. Read the full provision →

Fact, law, or both — all fit under Rule 43

Some appellate remedies restrict what kind of question a court may review. Rule 43 is deliberately broader: an appeal under it may be brought whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law. A party is not forced to strip out factual disputes or reframe them as pure legal questions just to fit within the rule, which spares litigants from awkward pleading gymnastics simply to gain access to the Court of Appeals. This breadth is one of the features that distinguishes Rule 43 from narrower appellate remedies confined strictly to questions of law.

Why this breadth matters for agency appeals

Quasi-judicial agencies decide cases that often turn heavily on facts — evidence of misconduct, technical findings, or factual eligibility determinations. If Rule 43 confined review to legal questions only, a party who genuinely disputes the agency's factual findings would have no clear route to the Court of Appeals at all. Allowing fact, law, or mixed questions keeps the remedy meaningful for the kinds of disputes these agencies actually decide on a regular basis. This is especially significant given how many disputes before these agencies genuinely hinge on disputed facts rather than pure questions of law.

A caution worth remembering

Breadth of coverage is not the same as an unlimited chance to relitigate facts. Elsewhere in Rule 43, the agency's factual findings are given weight when supported by substantial evidence, so raising a factual question does not guarantee the Court of Appeals will disturb what the agency found — it only confirms that such a question is properly before the court in the first place. A petitioner should therefore come prepared to show why the agency's factual findings actually fall short of that substantial-evidence threshold, not merely that a factual dispute exists.

Who this covers and what it leaves out

Section 3 only describes the kind of question Rule 43 may raise; it does not by itself decide which agencies or bodies a party may appeal from — that is fixed by the list of quasi-judicial agencies covered elsewhere in the Rule, and a decision from a body outside that list cannot borrow this mixed-question breadth just because the dispute happens to be factual. The rule binds the Court of Appeals as the reviewing court and the appellant who invokes it, since both must proceed within the period and manner Rule 43 sets out. A party who instead files under a mode of appeal limited to pure questions of law, while actually contesting the agency's factual findings, risks having the appeal treated as improperly brought rather than simply narrowed to the legal issues alone.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.