THE legal battle over the ownership of Green Cross Inc. is not yet over.
The Supreme Court (SC) ordered the reinstatement of the petition filed by the late Gonzalo Co, a.k.a. Co It, seeking the reversal of the lower court’s ruling that dismissed his complaint for reconveyance of 333.7 shares in the company with damages against his siblings.
The petition was ordered closed and terminated with finality by the SC in a resolution issued on March 8, 2012, after Co It filed a motion to withdraw the petition to give way for a possible reconciliation with his siblings. However, two years after, Co It, through his new counsel Ramon Maronilla, sought to reinstate the petition, saying his client was duped into withdrawing it.
Maronilla told the Court that Co It was advised by his previous lawyers that his siblings—Anthony Co, Mary Co Cho, Peter Co and Lucy So Hua Tan Co—decided to reconcile with him in the spirit of Christmas and in consideration of his old age, and to settle the inheritance problem amicably. Co It’s camp narrated that even before the Court granted the petition to withdraw the case, his client had a meeting with his siblings to finalize their amicable settlement.
In the meeting, Gonzalo was shocked to learn that respondents expressed no desire to amicably settle the case and even berated him for filing a case against them.
Maronilla said Co It’s siblings even demanded that his client make a public apology to the Chinese community in a Chinese newspaper before they even talk of reconciliation or compromise. “As a consequence of the withdrawal of [Gonzalo’s] petition for review on certiorari, respondents had their way with inheritance from the deceased parents of [Gonzalo]. Sadly, [Gonzalo] was left with virtually nothing from the inheritance. [Gonzalo] is a victim of gross injustice which, regrettably, was visited upon him by reason of the misplaced trust he reposed in his lawyers,” Maronilla said in seeking the reinstatement of the petition.
In reinstating the petition, the Court noted in their opposition to Co It’s motion to reinstate petition, the respondents did not mention about the petitioner’s reason for withdrawing the case, that is his expectancy of a reconciliation and amicable settlement with his siblings, which did not happen. The Court noted the respondents merely dwelt on the consequences of Co It’s conformity to the withdrawal of his petition and the finality of judgment, which bars him from reinstating his petition.
The SC explained its decision to grant the motion to withdraw filed by Co It’s previous lawyers was based on the latter’s belief of reconciliation with his siblings.
The Court noted it appears Co It received the raw end of the deal when his expected reconciliation with his siblings did not materialize because it was not explained to him by his previous lawyers the legal consequences of such to his claims in Green Cross.
“We cannot countenance such an injustice and validate a stance that our approval of a clearly lopsided motion completely precludes Gonzalo from pursuing his legal remedies,” the SC said. “Palpably, the interest of substantial justice demands Gonzalo be allowed to pursue his appeal, reinstatement of the petition imperative to further thresh out the issues involved herein,” it added.
However, the SC clarified its decision to reinstate the petition does not resolve the merits of the case.
“Considering the parties have not reconciled and reached an agreement which petitioner was led to believe as possible, we simply allow the reinstatement of the instant petition to provide Gonzalo the opportunity to avail of, and pursue, all his legal remedies concerning his supposed stake in Green Cross Inc., such is
