ALEMAR'S SIBAL V. NLRC (REMEDIAL)

Petitioner contends that public respondent should have denied the order of the Labor Arbiter for the immediate payment of separation pay in favor of private respondent. Petitioner insists that s stay of execution of monetary award is justified in this case because of the order of the SEC suspending all claims against petitioner pending before any court, tribunal, or body.

We note that at the time this petition had been filed, petitioner had been placed under rehabilitation receivership. Jurisprudence has established that a stay of execution may be warranted by the fact that a petitioner corporation has been placed under rehabilitation receivership. However, it is undisputed that the SEC issued an order approving the proposed rehabilitation plan of petitioner and placing it under liquidation.

Petitioner pointed out that the SEC order suspending all claims against it pending before any other court, tribunal, or body was pursuant to the rehabilitation receivership proceedings. Such order was necessary to enable the rehabilitation receiver to effectively exercise its powers free from any judicial or extra-judicial interference that might unduly hinder the rescue of the distressed company. Since receivership proceedings have ceased and petitioner's receiver and liquidator has been given the imprimatur to proceed with corporate liquidation, the cited order of the SEC has been rendered functus officio. Thus, there is no legal impediment for the execution of the decision of the Labor Arbiter for the payment of separation pay.

Considering that petitioner's monetary obligation to private respondent is long overdue and that petitioner has signified its willingness to comply with such obligation by entering into an agreement with private respondent as to the amount and manner of payment, petitioner cannot delay satisfaction of private respondent's claim. However, due to events subsequent to the filing of its petition, private respondent must present its claim with the rehabilitation receiver and liquidator of petitioner, subject to the rules on preference of credits.

SY YONG HU V. CA (REMEDIAL)

Petitioners assail the propriety of the receivership theorizing that there was no necessity therefor and that such remedy should be granted only in extreme cases and that at any rate, the rights of respondent Intestate Estate are adequately protected since notices of lis pendens of the aforesaid civil case have been annotated on the real properties of the partnership.

The findings of the CA accord with the existing rules and jurisprudence on receivership.

To ensure that no further disposition shall be made of the questioned assets and in view of the pending civil case in the lower court, there is a compelling necessity to place all these properties and assets under the management of a receivership committee. The receivership committee, which will provide active participation, through a designated representative, on the part of all interested parties, can best protect the properties involved and assure fairness and equity for all.

RECEIVERSHIP, which is admittedly a harsh remedy, should be granted with extreme caution. Sound bases therefor must appear on record, and there should be a clear showing of its necessity. The need for a receivership in the case under consideration can be gleaned from the aforecited disquisition by the CA finding that the properties of the partnership were in danger of being damaged or lost on account of certain acts of the appointed manager in liquidation.

The dispositions of certain properties by said manager, on the basis of partial partition, which was not yet final and executory, indicated that the feared irreparable injury to the properties of the partnership might happen again. So also the failure of the manager in liquidation to submit to the SEC an accounting of all the partnership assets as required in its order justified the SEC in placing the subject assets under receivership.