Case Digest (G.R. No. 196357)
Facts:
Air Materiel Wing Savings And Loan Association, Inc. v. Col. Luvin S. Manay, G.R. No. 175338, April 29, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners are Air Materiel Wing Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (AMWSLAI) and several individuals who voted as trustees; the respondents are Col. Luvin S. Manay, Col. Antonio Mantuano, Col. Anselmo R. Geronimo, Maj. Jose A. Elaurza, Lt. Johnson Nestor Ocfemia and Hon. Jesus B. Mupas, Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 117, Pasay City. The dispute arose from a contested board election and the enforcement of appellate and Supreme Court orders concerning the composition of AMWSLAI’s Board of Trustees.
After all eleven trustees resigned, an election for trustees was set for October 14, 2005. Several respondents filed certificates of candidacy but were declared ineligible by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP); they then filed an election protest with the RTC (RTC SEC Case No. 05‑001‑CFM) and sought an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin the scheduled election. The RTC issued a 72‑hour TRO, which the sheriff served on the AMWSLAI receiving office clerk, Ms. Kathy Liong; she later returned the papers saying she lacked authority to accept them. The RTC denied the TRO for defective service and therefore held it lacked jurisdiction; the October 14, 2005 election proceeded and petitioners were declared winners and assumed office.
Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 92372), which found substituted service on Ms. Liong proper, annulled the October 14, 2005 election and restrained enforcement of the election; petitioners sought review before the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 175338. On October 9, 2007 the Court rendered judgment denying the petition, affirming the CA decision but modifying that the October 14, 2005 election and its results were annulled, and lifting a TRO previously issued by the Court.
After denial of motions for reconsideration (December 3, 2007; leave denied January 23, 2008), the RTC on December 10, 2007 ordered the incumbent trustees to vacate to permit reinstatement of respondents and certain petitioners. Petitioners then filed a separate special civil action for certiorari with TRO before the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 101627) to enjoin the RTC’s December 10 order; the CA issued a TRO on December 20, 2007 enjoining enforcement of that RTC order.
Notwithstanding these events, petitioners caused a membership meeting and an election held on January 18, 2008; respondents, disqualified by the BSP, were not candidates. Respondents returned to the Supreme Court by filing a "Very Urgent Omnibus Motion" asking (a) that the CA TRO in CA‑G.R. SP No. 101627 be lifted; (b) that the January 18, 2008 election and its results be annulled; and (c) that petitioners (and others) be held in contempt for allegedly defying the Supreme Court’s October 9, 2007 decision. Petitioners opposed, asserting respondents resorted to the wrong mode of relief, committed forum shopping, failed to pay docket fees, and that the proper forum for annulment of the January 18 election was the RTC under Republic Act No. 8799 and the Interim Rules for Intra‑Corporate Controversies.
The Supreme Court (Third Division) denied the Omnibus Motion for lack of merit, holding that respondents sought relief outside the proper mode of review,...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court entertain respondents’ Omnibus Motion seeking the lifting of a Court of Appeals TRO (in CA‑G.R. SP No. 101627), annulment of the January 18, 2008 election, and contempt sanctions in G.R. No. 175338 rather than by the proper modes of relief?
- Was the Omnibus Motion procedurally defective for non‑payment of docket fees and for failing to comply with the formal requirements of Rule 65?
- Did respondents’ filing of the Omnibus Motion constitute forum shopping that warrants denial of relief?
- Could the Supreme Court, on the Omnibus Motion, properly rule on contempt or annul the January 18, 2008 election without factual fin...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)