AMWSLAI vs. Manay

An Omnibus Motion cannot substitute for the extraordinary remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; the Supreme Court cannot review proceedings or orders of the Court of Appeals unless brought through the proper mode of appeal, and strict adherence to procedural rules regarding docket fees, verification, certification against forum shopping, and material dates is mandatory to prevent abuse of court processes and maintain the orderly administration of justice.

The case arises from a protracted intra-corporate battle for control of the Air Materiel Wing Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (AMWSLAI), a financial institution serving military personnel. Following the mass resignation of all eleven members of the Board of Trustees in 2005, competing factions engaged in multiple rounds of election protests, temporary restraining orders, and conflicting judicial orders from the Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court, creating instability in the institution and affecting thousands of members' investments.

• Following the resignation of all eleven members of the AMWSLAI Board of Trustees, a new election was scheduled for October 14, 2005.
• Respondents Manay, Mantuano, Geronimo, Elaurza, and Ocfemia filed certificates of candidacy but were disqualified by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) due to alleged irregularities.
• Respondents filed an election protest with the RTC of Pasay City and sought an ex parte application for a TRO to enjoin the scheduled election.
• On October 13, 2005, the RTC issued a 72-hour TRO but denied the application later that day after finding lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of summons; the documents were returned by Ms. Kathy Liong who claimed she was not authorized to receive them.
• The October 14, 2005 election proceeded with individual petitioners declared winners, and they assumed office as new Board members.
• The Court of Appeals granted respondents' petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 92372), invalidated the October 14, 2005 election, and ruled that substituted service on Ms. Liong was proper.
• On October 9, 2007, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision with modification, annulled the October 14, 2005 election and its results, lifted its own TRO, and ordered respondents together with petitioners Nolasco, Jr., Estalilla, and Mercado to assume office and remain as trustees until a valid new election.
• Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was denied with finality on December 3, 2007; their Motion for Leave to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration was denied on January 23, 2008.
• On December 10, 2007, the RTC issued an Order directing the eleven incumbent board members to vacate their positions to give way to respondents and the three petitioners ordered reinstated by the Supreme Court.
• Petitioners Cacabelos and Reyes, together with Capt. Odelon Mendoza, instituted a separate special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 101627) assailing the December 10, 2007 Order.
• On December 20, 2007, the Court of Appeals issued a TRO enjoining the enforcement of the RTC's December 10, 2007 Order.
• On January 18, 2008, an election was held by the incumbent board members pursuant to AMWSLAI By-Laws, with seventeen candidates vying for seats; respondents were not among the candidates as they remained disqualified by the BSP.
• Respondents attempted to enforce the Supreme Court decision with Sheriff Villar and Col. Lipana but were prevented by security guards from entering the AMWSLAI office; the NBI also refused to intervene when deputized by the RTC.
• Respondents filed the Omnibus Motion with the Supreme Court seeking to lift the CA TRO, annul the January 18, 2008 election, and declare petitioners in contempt for defying the October 9, 2007 Decision.

• Respondents ignored the hierarchy of courts by coming directly to the Supreme Court instead of filing a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals regarding the TRO in CA-G.R. SP No. 101627, followed by a petition for certiorari if denied.
• The Omnibus Motion constitutes forum shopping as it seeks to preempt the resolution of issues already pending in CA-G.R. SP No. 101627 involving the same parties and reliefs.
• The prayer to annul the January 18, 2008 election should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, not the Supreme Court, pursuant to Republic Act No. 8799 and the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies.
• The motion is procedurally defective for lack of docket fees and failure to comply with formal requirements for certiorari under Rule 65, including verification, certification against forum shopping, and statement of material dates.

• The Supreme Court has authority to lift the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 101627 because the CA effectively restrained the enforcement of the Supreme Court's final decision.
• The Philippine National Police should be deputized to assist in the execution of the Supreme Court's October 9, 2007 Decision.
• The election held on January 18, 2008 should be declared null and void because it was called by petitioners who were no longer legitimate members of the Board of Trustees after the Supreme Court decision annulled their 2005 election.
• Petitioners should be held in contempt of court for employing strong-arm tactics and defying the Supreme Court's October 9, 2007 Decision through dilatory tactics designed to frustrate execution.

• Procedural:
  • Whether the Supreme Court can take cognizance of an Omnibus Motion seeking to lift a Court of Appeals TRO issued in a separate and distinct case (CA-G.R. SP No. 101627) filed in the original case (G.R. No. 175338).
  • Whether the Omnibus Motion is a valid substitute for the remedy of a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65.
  • Whether respondents are guilty of forum shopping by filing the Omnibus Motion while CA-G.R. SP No. 101627 is pending before the Court of Appeals.
  • Whether the failure to pay docket fees and comply with formal requirements (verification, certification against forum shopping, material dates) renders the Omnibus Motion dismissible.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the Supreme Court has authority to lift the TRO issued by the Court of Appeals in the separate case.
  • Whether the election held on January 18, 2008 should be annulled.
  • Whether petitioners should be declared in contempt of court for defying the Supreme Court's October 9, 2007 Decision.

• Procedural:
  • The Supreme Court cannot take cognizance of proceedings before the Court of Appeals unless brought through the proper mode of review; the Omnibus Motion cannot substitute for a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 which requires specific formal and substantive requirements.
  • The motion is defective for non-payment of docket fees, which is an indispensable requirement before the Court can take cognizance of a case, and no compelling reason was shown to relax this rule.
  • The motion is wanting in form and substance as it lacks verification, certification against forum shopping, certified true copy of the questioned judgment, copies of pertinent pleadings, and verified statement of material dates required by Rule 65.
  • Respondents are guilty of forum shopping because CA-G.R. SP No. 101627 and the present case involve identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs prayed for; any ruling on the Omnibus Motion would constitute res judicata on the pending CA petition.
  • Forum shopping is an act of malpractice that degrades the administration of justice; if willful and deliberate, both actions shall be dismissed with prejudice.
• Substantive:
  • The Supreme Court lacks authority to lift the TRO issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 101627 through a mere motion in G.R. No. 175338; the proper remedy is a motion for reconsideration before the CA followed by a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
  • The prayer to annul the January 18, 2008 election should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, not the Supreme Court, as jurisdiction over intra-corporate controversies involving election disputes lies with the RTC pursuant to Republic Act No. 8799.
  • The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and cannot resolve the motion for contempt without making factual conclusions; the trial court has the power to compel obedience to execution orders and sanction defiance under Rule 39, Section 1.

• Hierarchy of Courts — Parties must observe the proper hierarchy of remedies; direct recourse to the Supreme Court is allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition, and the Court of Appeals cannot be expected to provide adequate relief.
• Forum Shopping — Exists when there is identity of parties, identity of rights or causes of action and reliefs prayed for, and the identity is such that any judgment rendered in one action will amount to res judicata in the other; can be committed through litis pendentia, res judicata, or splitting of causes of action.
• Indispensable Requirement of Docket Fees — The payment of docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be ignored except for the most persuasive of reasons, and non-payment is grounds for dismissal.
• Strict Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Certiorari — A party seeking the extraordinary remedy of certiorari must strictly comply with Rule 65 requirements regarding verification, certification against forum shopping, and other formal requisites; non-observance cannot be brushed aside as mere technicality.
• Judicial Stability — A judgment or order of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be interfered with by any court of concurrent jurisdiction, and the power to modify or validate a judgment is restricted to the court which rendered it (cited in dissent).
• Execution of Judgments — Execution of a decision is a matter left to the court of origin under Rule 39, Section 1, and the trial court has the power to compel obedience and punish contempt.

• "A party who seeks to avail of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari must observe the rules laid down by law and non-observance thereof may not be brushed aside as mere technicality."
• "Forum shopping is an act of malpractice, as the litigants trifle with the courts and abuse their processes. It is improper conduct and degrades the administration of justice."
• "The requirements of the rules on appeal cannot be considered as merely harmless and trivial technicalities that can be discarded at whim. To be sure, the Court will not countenance deviations from the rules."
• "The sort of relief respondents seek in this case is unconventional to say the least. No such remedy is provided for under the Rules of Court."
• "It is fitting that we should now write finis to this controversy, and allow the AMWSLAI to regain the confidence of its members and of the general public."

• Sps. Manalili v. Sps. De Leon — Cited for the rule that payment of docket fees is an indispensable requirement before the Supreme Court can take cognizance of a case.
• De Los Santos, et al. v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the principle that non-observance of rules for certiorari may not be brushed aside as mere technicality.
• La Campana Development Corp. v. See — Cited for the definition and elements of forum shopping.
• Ao-as v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the three ways forum shopping can be committed and the distinction between willful and non-willful forum shopping.
• Montes v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the rule that willful forum shopping constitutes direct contempt and ground for summary dismissal with prejudice.
• Basuel v. Fact-Finding & Intelligence Bureau — Cited for the principle that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law.
• Atty. Javier v. Court of Appeals — Cited in dissent for the principle of judicial stability and non-interference by courts of concurrent jurisdiction.
• Balais v. Hon. Velasco — Cited in dissent for the rule that the tribunal which rendered the decision has general supervision and control over its execution.

• Rule 39, Section 1, second paragraph, Rules of Court — Governs execution of judgments by the court of origin and the trial court's power to compel obedience.
• Rule 65, Sections 1 and 2, Rules of Court — Requirements for petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.
• Rule 141, Section 5, Rules of Court — Docket fees requirement.
• Republic Act No. 8799 (Securities Regulation Code) — Grants jurisdiction to Regional Trial Courts over intra-corporate controversies.
• Rule 135, Section 6, Rules of Court — Means to carry jurisdiction into effect; allows courts to employ auxiliary writs and processes necessary to carry jurisdiction into effect (cited in dissent).

• Austria-Martinez, Chico-Nazario, and Reyes, JJ. — Simply concurred with the majority opinion without issuing separate opinions.

• Justice Nachura — Argued that the Omnibus Motion should be partly granted; contended that the CA TRO effectively restrained the enforcement of the Supreme Court's final decision, and the Court should lift it to prevent absurdity; maintained that requiring a separate certiorari action would create procedural barriers to enforcing the Court's own decision; found petitioners acted in bad faith by holding the January 18, 2008 election to circumvent the final decision; proposed dismissing CA-G.R. SP No. 101627 and directing the interim board to call a valid election immediately.