FACTS:

The case involves a petition for certiorari to set aside the resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and upholding the order of the Labor Arbiter to proceed with the execution of the decision rendered in favor of the private respondent. The private respondent, NLM Katipunan, filed a notice of strike against the petitioner, raising charges of unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal. The charges were elevated to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision ordering the petitioner to pay the private respondent separation pay. The Research and Information Unit of the NLRC computed the separation pay to a total of P207,365.33. The private respondent filed a motion for execution of the decision, and petitioner did not file any opposition. The parties agreed to the computation of the separation pay and a schedule of payments. The Labor Arbiter directed petitioner to pay the agreed amount of P20,736.53. The Rehabilitation Receiver of petitioner submitted a manifestation with a motion to defer payment due to the petitioner being under Rehabilitation Receivership. As a result of petitioner's failure to comply with the payment, the Labor Arbiter granted the motion for execution. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the Labor Arbiter due to being filed out of time. Petitioner filed a motion to suspend execution, citing an order from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) suspending all claims against the petitioner. The NLRC dismissed the appeal, and the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. Petitioner filed the petition before the Supreme Court, claiming that the stay of execution was justified due to the SEC order suspending claims against petitioner. The Solicitor General recommended giving due course to the petition without prejudice to the subsequent receipt of separation pay by the private respondent. The NLRC argued that the petitioner is bound by its agreement with the private respondent and that the order of execution made by the Labor Arbiter had reached finality. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner had been placed under rehabilitation receivership, but on March 5, 1997, the SEC approved the petitioner's rehabilitation plan and placed it under liquidation. Thus, the SEC's order suspending claims against the petitioner has been rendered functus officio. The Court dismissed the petition, directing the private respondent to file its claim with the rehabilitation receiver/liquidator of petitioner.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not a stay of execution of the monetary award is justified due to the order of the Securities and Exchange Commission suspending all claims against petitioner.

2. Whether or not the order of execution made by the Labor Arbiter had already reached finality.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and directed private respondent to file its claim with the rehabilitation receiver/liquidator of petitioner in SEC EB No. 81 entitled "In the Matter of the Liquidation of Alemar's Sibal & Sons" pending before the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Court ruled that there is no legal impediment for the execution of the decision of the Labor Arbiter for the payment of separation pay. The order of the Securities and Exchange Commission suspending all claims against petitioner has been rendered functus officio since the rehabilitation receiver has been given the imprimatur to proceed with corporate liquidation. However, due to events subsequent to the filing of the petition, private respondent must present its claim with the rehabilitation receiver and liquidator of petitioner, subject to the rules on preference of credits.