Case Digest (G.R. No. 126773)
Facts:
Rubberworld (Phils.), Inc., or Julie Yap Ong v. National Labor Relations Commission et al., G.R. No. 126773, April 14, 1999, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Rubberworld (Phils.), Inc. (alternatively sued as Julie Yap Ong); respondents are the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and a number of employees who filed labor complaints against petitioner.On November 24, 1994, petitioner filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) a petition for declaration of a state of suspension of payments and submitted a proposed rehabilitation plan. In an order dated December 28, 1994, the SEC created a management committee and ordered that “all actions for claims against Rubberworld Philippines, Inc. pending before any court, tribunal, office, board, body Commission of Sheriff are hereby deemed SUSPENDED,” effectively invoking P.D. 902-A, as amended.
Between April and July 1995, the private respondents (employees) filed before a Labor Arbiter complaints for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, damages and various money claims. Petitioner moved to suspend the labor proceedings citing the SEC suspension order and relevant jurisprudence. The Labor Arbiter denied the motion in an order dated September 25, 1995, holding that the SEC injunction applied only to enforcement of established rights and not to proceedings where claims were yet to be determined.
Petitioner appealed to the NLRC (Third Division), which, by Resolution dated April 26, 1996, affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s denial; a motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC on June 20, 1996. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking relief from the NLRC Resolutions. On November 20, 1996 the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order signed by Chief J...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC act without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, when it affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s denial of petitioner’s motion to suspend labor proceedings despite the SEC order under Section 6(...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)