Short answer. No, generally not. A petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, or Regional Trial Court shall raise only questions of law, distinctly set forth — factual findings from the courts below are not what this petition is meant to relitigate.
What the law says
A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court or other courts, whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition may include an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or other provisional remedies and shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.
Rule 45, Section 1 — Filing of petition with Supreme Court. Read the full provision →
This route to the Supreme Court is questions of law only
The petition described in this rule shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. A question of law asks whether the court below applied the correct legal rule to a given set of facts; it does not ask the Supreme Court to reweigh evidence, assess witness credibility, or decide which version of disputed events actually happened.
Which courts' rulings this petition can reach
The rule covers a petition to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final order, or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court or other courts, whenever authorized by law. It is the mechanism for bringing a case up from these tribunals to the Supreme Court, but always confined to the questions-of-law limitation.
Provisional remedies can still be sought alongside it
The petition may include an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or other provisional remedies, and the petitioner may also seek the same remedies by a separate verified motion filed in the same action at any time while it is pending. This lets a party protect their position while the purely legal questions in the petition are being resolved, without turning the petition itself into a vehicle for re-arguing the facts.
Why the distinction between law and fact matters here
Anyone hoping to bring a case to the Supreme Court under this rule needs to frame their arguments as genuine questions of law, distinctly identified, rather than as disagreement with how the lower courts read the evidence. A petition built around disputing the facts, rather than the legal conclusions drawn from them, does not fit what this particular avenue to the Supreme Court is designed to review, no matter how strongly the petitioner disagrees with the factual findings below.