Short answer. Not necessarily. Rule 46, Section 6 lets the Court of Appeals conduct hearings itself when factual issues need resolving, or delegate the reception of evidence to one of its own members or to an appropriate court, agency, or office. Either way, the resolution of a genuinely disputed factual issue does not have to rest purely on affidavits and documents.

What the law says

Whenever necessary to resolve factual issues, the court itself may conduct hearings thereon or delegate the reception of the evidence on such issues to any of its members or to an appropriate court, agency or office.

Rule 46, Section 6 — Determination of factual issues. Read the full provision →

The court's own hearing power

Original actions before the Court of Appeals are not confined to paper review when facts are contested. Section 6 provides that whenever necessary to resolve factual issues, the court itself may conduct hearings thereon — the justices can take evidence directly rather than relying solely on affidavits and documents. This keeps a genuinely disputed factual question from being resolved purely on competing paper submissions when live testimony would clarify matters.

Delegation as an alternative

The same section gives the court a second option: it may instead delegate the reception of the evidence on such issues to any of its members or to an appropriate court, agency or office. A single justice, or even another tribunal entirely, can be tasked with gathering the evidence, which is then presumably reported back to the court for its own evaluation.

Why flexibility here makes sense

Because original actions like certiorari or mandamus can sometimes hinge on genuinely disputed facts despite usually being decided on the existing record, this section keeps the Court of Appeals from being stuck deciding a factual dispute purely on paper when a hearing — whether before the court itself or a delegate — would actually resolve the disagreement rather than leave it unsettled.

This is discretionary, not automatic

Section 6 uses the word 'may' for both options, which means the Court of Appeals is not obligated to hold a hearing or delegate one every time a petition raises a factual assertion the respondent disputes. Many original actions can still be decided on the pleadings, affidavits, and documentary annexes alone. The hearing mechanism exists for the narrower situation where those papers leave a genuine factual issue unresolved and a hearing is actually necessary to reach a decision.

What a delegated hearing does not change

When the Court of Appeals delegates reception of evidence to a member or to another court, agency, or office, that delegate gathers the evidence but does not decide the petition — the delegate's role is limited to receiving the evidence, while the power to weigh it and rule on the factual issue stays with the Court of Appeals itself. This distinction matters to the parties involved, since a party who disagrees with how the delegate conducted the hearing, or with a preliminary factual finding the delegate reported, still directs any objection to the Court of Appeals rather than treating the delegate's role as a separate, appealable decision in its own right.

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.