G.R. No. 175338 . April 29, 2008.
AIR MATERIEL WING SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., petitioners, versus COL. LUVIN S. MANAY, PNP (Ret.); et al., respondents.

FACTS

The Supreme Court, in its October 9, 2007 Decision, ordered the reinstatement of respondents as trustees of AMWSLAI pending a valid election. After the Court denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration with finality on December 3, 2007, the RTC issued a December 10, 2007 Order to implement the reinstatement. Petitioners refused to comply and instead filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which then issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining the enforcement of the RTC’s implementing order. Subsequently, petitioners proceeded with a board election on January 18, 2008.
Respondents then filed a Very Urgent Omnibus Motion before the Supreme Court seeking to: (1) lift the CA’s TRO; (2) annul the January 2008 election; and (3) declare petitioners in contempt for defying the October 9, 2007 Decision. The majority of the Court denied this motion on procedural grounds, including improper remedy, non-payment of docket fees, and forum shopping.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents’ Omnibus Motion before the Supreme Court is the proper remedy to challenge the Court of Appeals’ TRO which restrained the implementation of the Supreme Court’s final and executory Decision.

RULING

Justice Nachura, in his dissenting opinion, argued that the Omnibus Motion was the correct and proper remedy, and the procedural infirmities cited by the majority were more apparent than real. The legal logic is that the CA’s TRO, which enjoined the RTC’s December 10 Order, effectively restrained the enforcement of the Supreme Court’s own final and executory October 9, 2007 Decision. The RTC’s Order was merely a ministerial implementation of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Therefore, the challenge to the CA’s TRO was not an independent action but an incident flowing directly from the execution of the Supreme Court’s judgment. Returning to the Supreme Court via a motion in the same case was the natural and expedient recourse to correct an affront to its authority and to prevent a subordinate court from obstructing its final decision.
Requiring respondents to file a separate petition would erect needless procedural barriers and lead to an absurd situation where the Supreme Court would tolerate delays in enforcing its own final judgment. Justice Nachura emphasized the Court’s inherent power under Section 6, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court to employ all means necessary to carry its jurisdiction into effect. He voted to partly grant the motion by lifting the CA’s TRO and dismissing the petition before the CA to allow full implementation of the October 9 Decision, followed by a proper election to resolve the leadership of AMWSLAI definitively.