G.R. No. 126773 -

Ruling

accordingly issue an order restraining its creditors from enforcing their claims against petitioner corporation. It further prayed for the creation of a management committee as well as for the approval of the proposed rehabilitation plan and memorandum of agreement between petitioner corporation and its creditors. "In an order dated December 28, 1994, the SEC favorably ruled on the petition for suspension of payments thusly: 'Accordingly, with the creation of the Management Committee, all actions for claims against Rubberworld Philippines, Inc. pending before any court, tribunal, office, board, body Commission of Sheriff are hereby deemed SUSPENDED. 'Consequently, all pending incidents for preliminary injunctions, writ of attachments (sic), foreclosures' and the like are hereby rendered moot and academic.' "Private respondents, who claim to be employees of petitioner corporation, filed against petitioners [from] April to July 1995 their respective complaints for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, damages and payment of separation pay, retirement benefits, 13th month pay and service incentive pay. "Petitioners moved to suspend the proceedings in the above labor cases on the strength of the SEC Order dated December 28, 1994. Likewise, petitioners cited the rulings of BF Homes vs. Court of Appeals (190 SCRA 262), Alemar's Sibal & Sons, Inc. vs. Elbinias (186 SCRA 94) and Bank of Philippine Islands vs. Court of Appeals (229 SCRA 223) to support their motion to suspend the proceedings in the labor cases. "In an Order dated September 25, 1995, the Labor Arbiter denied the aforesaid motion holding that the injunction contained in the SEC Order applied only to the enforcement of established rights and did not include the suspension of proceedings involving claims against petitioner which have yet to be ascertained. The Labor Arbiter further held that the order of the SEC suspending all actions for claims against petitioners does not cover the claims of private respondents in the labor cases because said claims and the concomitant liability of petitioners still had to be determined, thus carrying no dissipation of the assets of petitioners. "Petitioners appealed the adverse order of the Labor Arbiter to public respondent which, in a Resolution dated April 26, 1996, dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and, instead, sustained the rulings of the Labor Arbiter. "The motion for reconsideration of petitioners fared no better and was denied by public respondent in a Resolution dated June 20, 1996." [5] Hence, this petition. [6] The Issue Petitioner raises only one issue: "Whether or not the Respondent NLRC acted without or in excess of Jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in affirming the order of Labor Arbiter Voltaire A. Balitaan denying petitioners' motion to suspend proceedings despite the Order of the Securities and Exchange Commission under Sec. 6 (c) of P.D. 902-A directing the suspension of all action