TAYAG V. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED26 SCRA 242 Business Organization Corporation Law Domicileof aCorporationByLawsust!iel"#oa CourtOr"er Corporation is an Artificial Being$narc%&'6() $"ona%*er+ins"ie"in,ew!or+- S%eleft.e%in"properties %erean"a.roa"- Oneproperty s%eleft.e%in" were two stoc+ certificates co/ering 00)((2 s%ares ofstoc+sof t%eBenguet Consoli"ate") $nc1BC$2- Sai"stoc+certificates were in t%e possession of t%e Country #rustCompany of ,ew !or+ 1C#C3,!2- C#C3,! was t%e "omiciliarya"ministrator of t%e estate of *er+ins 1o./iously in t%e 4SA2-eanw%ile) in&'60) Renato#ayag was appointe" as t%eancillarya"ministrator 1of t%epropertiesof *er+inss%eleft.e%in" in t%e *%ilippines2-A"ispute arose .etween C#C3,!an" #ayag as to w%o.etween t%em is entitle" to possess t%e stoc+ certificates- Acase ensue" an" e/entually) t%e trial court or"ere" C#C3,! toturno/er t%estoc+certificatesto#ayag- C#C3,!refuse"-#ayag t%en file" wit% t%e court a petition to %a/e sai" stoc+certificates .e "eclare" lost an" to compel BC$ to issue newstoc+ certificates in replacement t%ereof- #%e trial courtgrante" #ayag5s petition-BC$ assaile"sai"or"erasit a/erre"t%at it cannot possi.lyissue new stoc+ certificates .ecause t%e two stoc+ certificates"eclare" lost are not actually lost6 t%at t%e trialcourt as well#ayag ac+nowle"ge" t%at t%e stoc+ certificates e7ists an" t%att%ey are wit% C#C3,!6 t%at accor"ing to BC$5s .y laws) it canonlyissuenewstoc+certificates) inlieuof lost) stolen) or"estroye"certificatesof stoc+s) onlyafter court of law%asissue"afinal an"e7ecutoryor"erastow%oreallyownsacertificate of stoc+-ISSUE: 8%et%er or not t%e arguments of BenguetConsoli"ate") $nc- are correct-HELD: ,o- Benguet Consoli"ate" is a corporation w%o owesits e7istence to *%ilippine laws- $t %as .een gi/en rig%ts an"pri/ileges un"er t%elaw- Corollary) it also%as o.ligationsun"er t%e law an" one of t%ose isto follow /ali" legalcourtor"ers- $t isnot immunefrom9u"icial control .ecauseit is"omicile" %ere in t%e *%ilippines- BC$ is a *%ilippinecorporation owing full allegiance an" su.9ect to t%eunrestricte"9uris"ictionof local courts- $ts s%ares of stoc+cannot t%erefore .e consi"ere" in any wise as immune fromlawful court or"ers- :urt%er) toallowBC$5soppositionistoren"er t%e court or"eragainst C#C3,! a mere scrap of paper-$t will lea/e #ayag wit%out any reme"y simply .ecause C#C3,!) a foreign entity refuses to comply wit% a /ali" court or"er-#%e final recourse t%en is for our local courts to create a legalfiction suc% t%at t%e stoc+ certificates in issue .e "eclare" loste/en t%oug% in reality t%ey e7ist in t%e %an"s of C#C3,!- #%isis/ali"-As%el"timean"again) fictionsw%ic%t%elawmayrelyuponint%epursuit of legitimateen"s%a/eplaye"animportant part in its "e/elopment-:urt%er still) t%eargument in/o+e".yBC$ t%at it canonlyissue newstoc+certificatesin accor"ance wit%its.ylaws ismisplace"- $t is wort% noting t%at C#C3,! "i" not appeal t%eor"erof t%ecourt it simplyrefuse"toturno/ert%estoc+certificates %ence owners%ip can .e sai" to %a/e .een settle"in fa/or of estate of *er+ins %ere- Also) assuming t%at t%erereally is a conflict .etween BC$5s .ylaws an" t%e court or"er)w%at s%oul" pre/ail is t%e lawful court or"er- $t woul" .e %ig%lyirregular if court or"ers woul" yiel" to t%e .ylaws of acorporation- Again) a corporation is not immune from 9u"icialor"ers-EN BANCG.R. No. L-23145November 29, 1968TESTATE ESTATE OF IDONAH SLADE ER!INS, "e#e$%e".RENATO D. TA&AG, ancillary administrator-appellee, vs.'ENG(ET )ONSOLIDATED, IN)., oppositor-appellant.Cirilo F. Asperillo, Jr., for ancillary administrator-appellee.Ross, Salcedo, Del Rosario, Bito and Misa for oppositor-appellant.FERNANDO, J.:Confronted by an obstinate and adamant refusal of the domiciliaryadministrator, the CountyTrust Companyof NewYor, !nited"tates of America, of the estate of the deceased #donah "lade$erins, who died in New Yor City on %arch &', ()*+, to surrenderto the ancillary administrator in the $hilippines the stoc certificatesownedbyher ina$hilippinecorporation, Ben,uet Consolidated,#nc., tosatisfythele,itimateclaims of local creditors, thelowercourt, then presided by the -onorable Arsenio "antos, now retired,issued on %ay (., ()*/, an order of this tenor0 1After considerin,the motion of the ancillary administrator, dated 2ebruary ((, ()*/, aswell as the opposition filed by the Ben,uet Consolidated,#nc.,theCourt hereby 3(4 considers as lost for all purposes in connection withthe administration and li5uidation of the $hilippine estate of #donah"lade$erinsthestoccertificatescoverin,the66,++&sharesofstoc standin, in her name in the boos of the Ben,uet Consolidated,#nc., 3&4 orders said certificates cancelled, and 364 directs saidcorporation to issue new certificates in lieu thereof, the same to bedelivered by said corporation to either the incumbent ancillaryadministrator or to the $robate 7ivision of this Court.1(2romsuchanorder,anappealwastaentothisCourtnotbythedomiciliary administrator, the County Trust Company of New Yor,but bythe$hilippinecorporation, theBen,uet Consolidated, #nc.The appeal cannot possibly prosper. The challen,ed order representsa response and e8presses a policy, to paraphrase 2ranfurter, arisin,out ofaspecificproblem, addressedtotheattainment ofspecificendsbytheuseofspecificremedies, withfull andamplesupportfrom le,al doctrines of wei,ht and si,nificance.Thefactswill e8plainwhy. Asset forthinthebrief of appellantBen,uet Consolidated, #nc., #donah "lade $erins, who died on%arch&', ()*+inNewYorCity, left amon,others, twostoccertificates coverin, 66,++& shares of appellant, the certificates bein,in the possession of the County Trust Company of New Yor, whichas noted, is the domiciliary administrator of the estate of thedeceased.& Then came this portion of the appellant9s brief0 1:nAu,ust (&, ()*+, $rospero "anidad instituted ancillaryadministration proceedin,s in the Court of 2irst #nstance of %anila;anuary&&, ()*6, hewas substitutedbytheappellee?enato7.Taya,. A dispute arose between the domiciary administrator in NewYor and the ancillary administrator in the $hilippines as to which ofthemwas entitled to the possession of the stoc certificates in5uestion. :n >anuary &', ()*/, the Court of 2irst #nstance of %anilaorderedthedomiciliaryadministrator, CountyTrust Company, to1produce and deposit1 them with the ancillary administrator or withtheClerofCourt. Thedomiciliaryadministratordidnot complywith the order, and on 2ebruary ((, ()*/, the ancillary administratorpetitionedthecourt to1issueanorder declarin,thecertificateorcertificates of stocs coverin, the 66,++& shares issued in the nameof #donah "lade $erins by Ben,uet Consolidated, #nc., be declared@orA considered as lost.16#t istobenotedfurtherthat appellant Ben,uet Consolidated, #nc.admits that 1it is immaterial1 as far as it is concerned as to 1who isentitled to the possession of the stoc certificates in 5uestion;appellant opposed the petition of the ancillary administrator becausethesaidstoccertificates areine8istence, theyaretodayinthepossession of the domiciliary administrator, the County TrustCompany, in New Yor, !.".A....1/#t is its view, therefore, that under the circumstances, the stoccertificatescannot bedeclaredor consideredaslost. %oreover, itwould alle,e that there was a failure to observe certain re5uirementsof its by-laws before new stoc certificates could be issued. -ence,its appeal.Aswasmadeclearat theoutset ofthisopinion, theappeal lacsmerit. Thechallen,edorderconstitutesanemphaticaffirmationofBudicial authority sou,ht to be emasculated by the wilful conduct ofthedomiciliaryadministratorinrefusin,toaccordobediencetoacourt decree. -ow, then, can this order be sti,mati=ed as ille,alCAs is true of manyproblems confrontin, the Budiciary, such aresponse was called for by the realities of the situation. Dhat cannotbe i,nored is that conduct borderin, on wilful defiance, if it had notactually reached it, cannot without undue loss of Budicial presti,e, becondoned or tolerated. 2or the law is not so lacin, in fle8ibility andresourcefulness as to preclude such a solution, the more so as deeperreflectionwouldmae clear its bein,buttressedbyindisputableprinciples and supported by the stron,est policy considerations.#t can trulybe said then that the result arrived at upheld andvindicated the honor of the Budiciary no less than that of the country.Throu,h this challen,ed order, there is thus dispelled the atmosphereof contin,ent frustrationbrou,ht about bythepersistenceof thedomiciliary administrator to hold on to the stoc certificates after ithad, as admitted, voluntarily submitted itself to the Burisdiction of thelower court by enterin, its appearance throu,h counsel on >une &',()*6, and filin, a petition for relief from a previous order of %arch(E, ()*6.Thus did the lower court, in the order now on appeal, impart vitalityand effectivenessto what was decreed.2or withoutit, what it hadbeendecidedwouldbeset at nau,ht andnullified. !nlesssuchablatant disre,ardbythedomiciliaryadministrator, withresidenceabroad, of what was previously ordained by a court order could bethusremedied, it wouldhaveentailed, insofar asthismatter wasconcerned, not a partial but a well-ni,h complete paralysis of Budicialauthority.(. Appellant Ben,uet Consolidated, #nc. did not dispute the power ofthe appellee ancillary administrator to ,ain control and possession ofall assets of the decedent within the Burisdiction of the $hilippines.Nor could it. "uch a power is inherent in his duty to settle her estateand satisfy the claims of local creditors.E As >ustice Tuason speain,for this Court made clear, it is a 1,eneral rule universally reco,ni=ed1that administration, whether principal or ancillary, certainly 1e8tendsto the assets of a decedent found within the state or country where itwas ,ranted,1 the corollary bein, 1that an administrator appointed inone state or country has no power over property in another state orcountry.1*#t is to be noted that the scope of the power of the ancillaryadministrator was, in an earlier case, set forth by >ustice %alcolm.Thus0 1#t is often necessary to have more than one administration ofan estate. Dhen a persondies intestate ownin, propertyinthecountry of his domicile as well as in a forei,n country,administration is had in both countries. That which is ,ranted in theBurisdiction of decedent9s last domicile is termed the principaladministration, while any other administration is termed the ancillaryadministration. The reason for the latter is because a ,rant ofadministration does not ex proprio vigore have any effect beyond thelimits of the country in which it is ,ranted. -ence, an administratorappointed in a forei,n state has no authority in the @$hilippinesA. Theancillary administration is proper, whenever a person dies, leavin, ina country other than that of his last domicile, property to beadministeredinthenatureofassetsofthedeceasedliableforhisindividual debts or to be distributed amon, his heirs.1'#t would follow then that the authority of the probate court to re5uirethat ancillary administrator9s ri,ht to 1the stoc certificates coverin,the 66,++& shares ... standin, in her name in the boos of @appellantABen,uet Consolidated, #nc....1 be respected is e5ually beyond5uestion. 2or appellant is a $hilippine corporation owin, fullalle,iance and subBect to the unrestricted Burisdiction of local courts.#tssharesof stoccannot thereforebeconsideredinanywiseasimmune from lawful court orders.:ur holdin, in Dells 2ar,o Ban and !nion v. Collector of #nternal?evenue. findsapplication. 1#ntheinstantcase, theactualsitusofthe shares of stoc is in the $hilippines, the corporation bein,domiciled @hereA.1 To the force of the above undeniable proposition,not even appellant is insensible. #t does not dispute it. Nor could itsuccessfully do so even if it were so minded.&. #n the face of such incontrovertible doctrines that ar,ue in a ratherconclusive fashion for the le,ality of the challen,ed order, how doesappellant, Ben,uet Consolidated, #nc. propose to carry the e8tremelyheavy burden of persuasion of precisely demonstratin, the contraryC#t would assi,n as the basic error alle,edly committed by the lowercourt its 1considerin, as lost the stoc certificates coverin, 66,++&shares of Ben,uet belon,in, to the deceased #donah "lade$erins, ...1) %ore specifically, appellant would stress that the 1lowercourt could not 1consider as lost1 the stoc certificates in 5uestionwhen, as a matter of fact, his -onor the trial >ud,e new, and doesnow, and it is admitted by the appellee, that the said stoccertificatesareine8istenceandaretodayinthepossessionofthedomiciliary administrator in New Yor.1(+There may be an element of fiction in the above view of the lowercourt. That certainly does not suffice to call for the reversal of theappealed order. "ince there is a refusal, persistently adhered to by thedomiciliaryadministrator inNewYor, todeliver the shares ofstocs of appellant corporation owned by the decedent to theancillary administrator in the $hilippines, there was nothin,unreasonable or arbitrary in considerin, them as lost and re5uirin,theappellanttoissuenewcertificatesinlieuthereof.Thereby,thetas incumbent under the law on the ancillary administrator could bedischar,ed and his responsibility fulfilled.Anyotherviewwouldresult inthecompliancetoavalidBudicialorderbein,madetodependontheuncontrolleddiscretionofthepartyor entity, inthiscasedomiciledabroad, whichthusfar hasshown the utmost persistence in refusin, to yield obedience.Certainly, appellant would not be heard to contend in all seriousnessthat a Budicial decree could be treated as a mere scrap of paper, thecourt issuin, it bein, powerless to remedy its fla,rant disre,ard.#t may be admitted of course that such alle,ed loss as found by thelowercourtdidnotcorresponde8actlywiththefacts.Tobemoreblunt, the 5ualityof truthmaybe lacin,insucha conclusionarrivedat. #t istoberememberedhowever,a,aintoborrowfrom2ranfurter, 1that fictions which the law may rely upon in the pursuitof le,itimate ends have played an important part in itsdevelopment.1(("peain,ofthecommonlawinitsearlierperiod, Cardo=ocouldstate fictions 1were devices to advance the ends of Bustice, @even ifAclumsy and at times offensive.1(& "ome of them have persisted eventothepresent, that eminent Burist, notin,1the5uasi contract, theadoptedchild, theconstructivetrust, all of flourishin,vitality, toattest theempireof1asif1today.1(6 -eliewisenoted1aclassoffictions of another order, thefictionwhichis aworin,tool ofthou,ht, but which at times hides itself from view till reflection andanalysis have brou,ht it to the li,ht.1(/Dhat cannot be disputed, therefore, is the at times indispensable rolethat fictions as such played in the law. There should be then on thepart of theappellant afurther refinement inthecatholicityof itscondemnation of such Budicial techni5ue. #f ever an occasion did callfor the employment of a le,al fiction to put an end to the anomaloussituationofavalidBudicial orderbein,disre,ardedwithapparentimpunity, this is it. Dhat is thus most obvious is that this particularalle,ed error does not carry persuasion.6.Appellant Ben,uet Consolidated, #nc. wouldseetobolstertheabove contention by its invoin, one of the provisions of its by-lawswhich would set forth the procedure to be followed in case of a lost,stolen or destroyed stoc certificate; it would stress that in the eventofacontest orthependencyofanactionre,ardin,ownershipofsuch certificate or certificates of stoc alle,edlylost, stolen ordestroyed, theissuanceof anewcertificateor certificates wouldawait the 1final decision by @aA court re,ardin, the ownership@thereofA.1(E"uch reliance is misplaced. #n the first place, there is no suchoccasion to apply such by-law. #t is admitted that the forei,ndomiciliaryadministrator didnot appeal fromthe order nowin5uestion. %oreover, there is liewise the e8press admission ofappellant thatasfar asit is concerned,1itisimmaterial...whoisentitled tothe possession ofthe stoc certificates ...1Evenifsuchwere not the case, it would be a le,al absurdity to impart to such aprovisionconclusivenessandfinality. Assumin,that acontrarietye8ists between the above by-law and the command of a court decree,the latter is to be followed.#t isunderstandable, asCardo=opointedout, that theConstitutionoverrides a statute, towhich, however, the Budiciarymust yielddeference, whenappropriatelyinvoedanddeemedapplicable. #twouldbemost hi,hlyunorthodo8, however,ifacorporateby-lawwould be accorded such a hi,h estate in the Bural order that a courtmust not only tae note of it but yield to its alle,ed controllin, force.The fear of appellant of a contin,ent liability with which it could besaddled unless the appealed order be set aside for its inconsistencywith one of its by-laws does not impress us. #ts obedience to a lawfulcourt order certainly constitutes a valid defense, assumin, that suchapprehensionof apossiblecourt actiona,ainst it couldpossiblymateriali=e. Thus far, nothin,inthecircumstances as theyhavedeveloped ,ives substance to such a fear. Fossamer possibilities of afuturepreBudicetoappellant donot sufficetonullifythelawfule8ercise of Budicial authority./. Dhat is more the view adopted by appellant Ben,uetConsolidated, #nc. is frau,ht with implications at war with the basicpostulates of corporate theory.Destart withthe undeniable premise that, 1a corporationis anartificial bein, created by operation of law....1(* #t owes its life to thestate, its birth bein, purely dependent on its will. As Berle so aptlystated0 1Classically, a corporationwas conceivedas anartificialperson, owin, its e8istence throu,h creation by a soverei,npower.1(' As a matter of fact, the statutory lan,ua,e employed owesmuch toChief >ustice %arshall, who inthe 7artmouthColle,edecision defined a corporation precisely as 1an artificial bein,,invisible, intan,ible, and e8istin, only in contemplation of law.1(.The well-nown authority 2letcher could summari=e the matter thus01A corporation is not in fact and in reality a person, but the law treatsit as thou,h it were a person by process of fiction, or by re,ardin, itas an artificial person distinct and separate fromits individualstocholders.... #t owes its e8istence to law. #t is an artificial personcreatedbylawfor certainspecificpurposes, thee8tent of whosee8istence, powers and liberties is fi8ed by its charter.1()7ean $ound9stersesummary, aBuristicperson, resultin,fromanassociationofhuman bein,s ,ranted le,al personality by the state, puts the matterneatly.&+There is thus a reBection of Fiere9s genossencaft theory, the basictheme of which to 5uote from 2riedmann, 1is the reality of the ,roupasasocial andle,al entity, independent of statereco,nitionandconcession.1&( A corporation as nown to $hilippine Burisprudence isa creature without any e8istence until it has received the imprimaturof the state accordin, to law. #t is lo,ically inconceivable thereforethat it will have ri,hts and privile,es of a hi,her priority than that ofits creator. %orethanthat, it cannot le,itimatelyrefusetoyieldobediencetoacts of its stateor,ans, certainlynot e8cludin,theBudiciary, whenever called upon to do so.As a matter of fact, a corporation once it comes into bein,, followin,American law still of persuasive authority in our Burisdiction, comesmore often within the en of the Budiciarythan the other twocoordinate branches. #t institutes the appropriate court action toenforce its ri,ht. Correlatively, it is not immune from Budicial controlin those instances, where a duty under the law as ascertained in anappropriate le,al proceedin, is cast upon it.To assert that it can choose which court order to follow and which todisre,ard is to confer upon it not autonomy which may be concededbut license which cannot be tolerated. #t is to ar,ue that it may, whenso minded, overrule the state, the source of its very e8istence; it is tocontendthat what anyof its ,overnmental or,ans maylawfullyre5uirecouldbe i,noredat will. "oe8trava,ant aclaimcannotpossibly merit approval.E. :ne last point. #n Giloria v. Administrator of Geterans Affairs,&& itwasshownthat ina,uardianshipproceedin,sthenpendin,inalower court, the !nited "tates Geterans Administration filed a motionfortherefundofacertainsumofmoneypaidtotheminorunder,uardianship, alle,in, that the lower court had previously ,ranted itspetitiontoconsiderthedeceasedfatherasnot entitledto,uerillabenefits accordin, to a determination arrived at by its main office inthe !nited "tates. The motion was denied. #n seein, areconsideration of such order, the Administrator relied on anAmerican federal statute main, his decisions 1final and conclusiveonall 5uestions of lawor fact1 precludin,anyother Americanofficial to e8amine the matter anew, 1e8cept a Bud,e or Bud,es of the!nited "tates court.1&6 ?econsideration was denied, and theAdministrator appealed.#n an opinion by >ustice >.B.ud,eof theCourt of 2irst #nstance, dated%ay(., ()*/, isaffirmed. Dith costs a,ainst oppositor-appelant Ben,uetConsolidated, #nc.Ma!alintal, "aldivar and Capistrano, JJ., concur.Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.#., Di$on, Sance$ and Castro,JJ., concur in the result.CONCEPT BUILDERS INC V. NLRC[GR 108734, 29 Ma 199!"#a$%&: Concept Buil"ers) $nc-) 1CB$2 a"omestic corporation) wit%principal office at 0;; aysan Roa") illego) *alcronio >i"ucos) *e"ro A.oigar) ,or.ertoComen"a"or)RogelioSalut)?milio>arcia) @r-)ariano Rio)*aulina Basea) Alfre"o Al.era) *a=uito Salut) Domingo>uarino) Romeo>al/e) Domina"orSa.ina) :elipeRa"iana)>a/inoSuali.io) oreno?scares) :er"inan"#orres) :elipeBasilan) an" Ru.en Ro.alos were employe" .y sai" companyas la.orers) carpenters an" riggers- On ,o/em.er &'A&)ara.e) et- al- were ser/e" in"i/i"ual written notices oftermination of employment .y CB$) effecti/e on 0( ,o/em.er&'A&- $t was state" in t%e in"i/i"ual notices t%at t%eir contractsof employment %a" e7pire" an" t%e pro9ect in w%ic% t%ey were%ire" %a" .een complete"- #%e ,ational La.or RelationsCommission 1,LRC2 foun" it to .e) t%e fact) %owe/er) t%at att%e time of t%e termination of ara.e) et-al-Bs employment) t%epro9ect in w%ic% t%ey were %ire" %a" not yet .een finis%e" an"complete"- CB$ %a" to engage t%e ser/ices of su.3contractorsw%osewor+ers performe"t%efunctions of ara.e) et- al-Aggrie/e") ara.e) et- al- file" a complaint for illegal"ismissal) unfair la.or practice an" non3payment of t%eir legal%oli"aypay)o/ertimepayan"t%irteent%3mont%payagainstCB$- On &' Decem.er &'A4) t%e La.or Ar.iter ren"ere"9u"gment or"ering CB$ to reinstate ara.e et- al- an" to payt%em .ac+ wages e=ui/alent to & year or 0(( wor+ing "ays-On2C,o/em.er&'A;) t%e,LRC"ismisse"t%emotionforreconsi"eration file" .y CB$ on t%e groun" t%at t%e sai""ecision %a" alrea"y .ecome final an" e7ecutory- On&6Octo.er &'A6) t%e,LRCResearc%an"$nformationDepartment ma"e t%e fin"ing t%at ara.e) et- al-Bs .ac+wagesamounte"to*&'')A((-((- On2'Octo.er&'A6) t%eLa.or Ar.iter issue" a writ of e7ecution "irecting t%e s%eriff toe7ecute t%e Decision) "ate" &' Decem.er &'A4- #%e writ waspartially satisfie"t%roug%garnis%ment of sums fromCB$Bs"e.tor) t%e etropolitan 8aterwor+s an" Sewerage Aut%ority)in t%e amount of *A&)0A;-04- Sai" amount was turne" o/er tot%e cas%ier of t%e ,LRC- On & :e.ruary &'A') an Alias 8rit of?7ecution was issue" .y t%e La.or Ar.iter "irecting t%e s%eriffto collect from CB$ t%e sum of *&&C)4&4-C6) representing t%e.alance of t%e 9u"gment awar") an" to reinstate ara.e) et-al- tot%eir former positions- On&0@uly &'A') t%es%eriffissue" a report stating t%at %e trie" to ser/e t%e alias writ ofe7ecution on petitioner t%roug% t%e security guar" on "uty .utt%eser/icewasrefuse"ont%egroun"t%at CB$ nolongeroccupie" t%e premises- On 26 Septem.er &'A6) upon motionof ara.e) et- al-) t%e La.or Ar.iter issue" a secon" alias writof e7ecution- #%esai"writ %a"not .eenenforce".yt%especial s%eriff .ecause) as state" in %is progress report "ate"2 ,o/em.er &'A') t%at all t%e employees insi"e CB$Bspremisesclaime"t%at t%eywereemployeesof Dy"ro*ipes*%ilippines) $nc- 1D**$2 an" not .y CB$6 t%at le/y was ma"eupon personalproperties %e foun" in t%e premises6 an" t%atsecurityguar"swit%%ig%3powere"gunspre/ente"%imfromremo/ing t%e properties %e %a" le/ie" upon- #%e sai" specials%eriff recommen"e"t%at a E.rea+3open or"erE .e issue" toena.le %im to enter CB$Bs premises so t%at %e coul" procee"wit% t%e pu.lic auction sale of t%e aforesai" personalpropertiesonC,o/em.er &'A'- On6,o/em.er &'A') acertainDennisCuyeg+engfile"at%ir"3partyclaimwit%t%eLa.or Ar.iter alleging t%at t%e properties soug%t to .e le/ie"upon .y t%e s%eriff were owne" .y D**$) of w%ic% %e is t%e