The Supreme Court Plenary proceeded to settle the so-called “Jurisdictional Conflict in Ordinary Justice” brought forth by civil judges regarding a labor judge who was reviewing an executive process wherein claims of such a nature were made. Upon recording the seizure of a property belonging to the respondent, note was made that a mortgage lien existed in favor of a third creditor; the judge ordered that the creditor be summoned, and after the meeting designated a guardian ad litem for him. The guardian then filed the executive claim for the mortgage guarantee before the labor judge. The labor judge rejected the claim and ordered it be sent to the civil court; after some problems, the civil judges pointed out that it was incumbent upon the Labor Judge to review the Civil executive claim, given that he had decreed the seizure of the property. The Plenary Court, in a questionable and misguided decision, determined that the labor judge should review the civil claims.