Facts:

The case involves Alemar's Sibal & Sons, Inc. (petitioner) and G.A. Yupangco & Co., Inc. (respondent). The events leading to the case began on December 11, 1984, when G.A. Yupangco filed a complaint for the collection of a sum of money against Alemar's Bookstore, a business entity owned by Alemar's Sibal & Sons, Inc., in the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Region, Branch 141, Makati. On August 30, 1985, the court rendered a default judgment in favor of G.A. Yupangco, ordering Alemar's to pay P39,502.57, plus interest, attorney's fees, and costs of suit. Subsequently, on September 23, 1985, Ledesma, Saludo and Associates filed a motion to intervene, informing the court that Alemar's had been placed under rehabilitation receivership by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The motion sought to set aside the default judgment and suspend further proceedings. The SEC's order stated that all actions for claims against Alemar...

Facts:

1. Initiation of the Case:
   On December 11, 1984, private respondent G.A. Yupangco & Co., Inc. (G.A. Yupangco) filed a collection suit against Alemar's Bookstore, owned by petitioner Alemar's Sibal & Sons, Inc. (Alemar's), for unpaid obligations, damages, and preliminary attachment.

2. Default Judgment:
   On August 30, 1985, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a default judgment in favor of G.A. Yupangco, ordering Alemar's to pay P39,502.57 plus 2% monthly interest, 25% attorney's fees, and costs of suit.

3. Rehabilitation Receivership:
   On September 23, 1985, Ledesma, Saludo & Associates, as the appointed rehabilitation receiver for Alemar's, filed an omnibus motion to intervene, set aside the default judgment, and suspend proceedings. This was based on an August 1, 1984 SEC order placing Alemar's under rehabilitation receivership and suspending all claims against it.

4. Court's Response to Receivership:
   On October 29, 1985, the RTC denied the motion to intervene and set aside the default judgment but granted the motion to suspend proceedings. It allowed G.A. Yupangco to present the judgment to the receiver for settlement.

5. Issuance of Writ of Execution:
   On January 7, 1986, G.A. Yupangco moved for the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce the default judgment, which had become final and executory. The writ was issued on January 15, 1986.

6. Payment and Dispute:
   On January 31, 1986, the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) encashed a check for P62,240.00 to satisfy the judgment. Alemar's moved to discharge the writ and return the payment, arguing that the execution violated the suspension order.

7. Denial of Motion to Discharge:
   On May 15, 1986, the RTC denied Alemar's motion to discharge the writ, reasoning that discharging it would delay G.A. Yupangco's claim and that the receivership did not preclude execution.

Issue:

1. Whether the respondent court could validly proceed with the execution of a final judgment for payment of a sum of money despite the judgment debtor (Alemar's) being placed under rehabilitation receivership.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)