G.R. No. 75315 . May 7, 1990.
BELL CARPETS INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MILAGROS CAGUIOA, VICTOR R. STA. ANA and MANILA BAY SPINNING MILLS, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Manila Bay Spinning Mills, Inc. (MBSMI) sued Carpets International (Phils.), Inc. for recovery of an unpaid balance for delivered yarn. MBSMI secured a writ of preliminary attachment, leading to the seizure of properties at Carpets International’s factory. Bell Carpets International Trading Corporation (BCITC) filed a third-party claim, asserting ownership over part of the attached inventory and finished goods. MBSMI then moved to implead BCITC as a party-defendant, alleging it and Carpets International were one and the same entity due to a merger.
The trial court granted the motion to implead. Carpets International later manifested that none of the attached items belonged to it. MBSMI moved for summary judgment against both corporations, contending the indebtedness and material facts were admitted. The trial court granted summary judgment, ordering Carpets International to pay MBSMI. It also granted MBSMI’s motion for execution pending appeal. BCITC challenged these orders via certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and execution pending appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. Summary judgment was proper as no genuine issue of material fact existed. The core obligation—the indebtedness for the yarn—was established by Carpets International’s own judicial admissions. In its answer, Carpets International admitted the transactions and receipt of the goods, merely presenting a different characterization (consignment) and defenses (non-signing of some invoices, defective quality) that did not negate the fundamental fact of the debt incurred. These defenses did not constitute a genuine issue warranting a full trial.
Regarding execution pending appeal, the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion. The grounds cited—the perishable and fashionable nature of the attached finished goods (which were deteriorating in storage) and the imminent insolvency of the judgment debtor—are valid reasons under the Rules of Court to prevent the judgment from becoming ineffectual. The finding that BCITC and Carpets International were not separate entities was also a factual determination supported by evidence, including admissions from Carpets International’s officers that the attached properties belonged to BCITC, which was final and conclusive.