GR 175338; (April, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175338 ; April 29, 2008
Air Materiel Wing Savings and Loan Association, Inc., et al., petitioners, vs. Col. Luvin S. Manay, et al., respondents.
FACTS
This case originated from an election protest concerning the Board of Trustees of the Air Materiel Wing Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (AMWSLAI). Respondents, who were disqualified from candidacy, secured a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to halt the scheduled election. The TRO and summons were served on an AMWSLAI employee, who later returned them, claiming lack of authority. The RTC subsequently denied the TRO application, citing improper service and lack of jurisdiction. The election proceeded, and petitioners were declared winners.
Respondents challenged the RTC order via certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which ruled the substituted service of summons was valid, annulled the election, and ordered respondents’ reinstatement. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision on October 9, 2007, annulling the 2005 election. After the RTC issued an execution order, petitioners held a new election on January 18, 2008, wherein respondents, still disqualified by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, did not participate.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) whether the Supreme Court should lift the TRO issued by the Court of Appeals that enjoined the execution of the RTC’s reinstatement order; (2) whether the January 2008 election should be annulled; and (3) whether petitioners should be held in contempt for defying the Supreme Court’s October 2007 Decision.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the Omnibus Motion. On the first issue, the Court found the respondents’ remedy improper. A TRO issued by the Court of Appeals in a separate certiorari proceeding (CA-G.R. SP No. 101627) cannot be lifted by the Supreme Court via a mere motion in the present case. The proper recourse was to await the appellate court’s resolution or to file a separate petition. On the second issue, the Court ruled it could not annul the January 2008 election. That election was a separate corporate act undertaken after the finality of the October 2007 Decision. Any challenge to its validity, including the respondents’ disqualification, must be raised in an appropriate proceeding before the proper forum, not via an omnibus motion.
Regarding contempt, the Court declined to rule, emphasizing it is not a trier of facts. The determination of whether petitioners defied the final judgment requires factual findings on the execution process, which is within the original jurisdiction of the trial court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The trial court has the power to compel obedience and sanction defiance of its execution orders. The Supreme Court’s role is limited to reviewing errors of law. The Resolution aimed to conclude the prolonged controversy to restore stability to AMWSLAI for the benefit of its members.