SC backtracks on Green Cross ownership row

MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC) has revived the case involving the ownership dispute over a rubbing alcohol firm.

In a 16-page decision released recently, the high court’s Special Second Division reversed its March 2012 final ruling that terminated the case after the late Gonzalo Co, founder of Green Cross Inc., withdrew his claims for a reconciliation with his siblings.

The SC granted the 2014 motion of Co’s heirs to reinstate his petition for reconveyance of 333.7 shares in the company with damages against his siblings who are now running the rubbing alcohol firm.

Ramon Maronilla, lawyer for Co’s heirs, said the late businessman was misled by his former lawyers into withdrawing the case against his siblings Anthony Co, Mary Co Cho, Peter Co and Lucy So Hua Tan Co.

Co’s previous lawyers claimed that the siblings have decided to reconcile with him in consideration of his old age, and to settle the inheritance dispute amicably.

But in a meeting, Co was surprised to learn that the respondents expressed no desire to amicably settle the case and even berated him for filing a complaint against them.

His siblings even demanded that he make a public apology to the Chinese community in a Chinese newspaper before they talk of reconciliation or compromise. 

“As a consequence of the withdrawal of Co’s petition for review on certiorari, the respondents had their way with inheritance from the deceased parents of Co. He was left with virtually nothing from the inheritance. He is a victim of gross injustice,” Maronilla said.  

The SC explained that its decision to grant the motion to withdraw filed by Co’s previous lawyers was based on the latter’s belief of reconciliation with his siblings. 

The high court noted that it appeared that Co received the raw end of the deal when his expected reconciliation with his siblings did not materialize because it's legal consequences on his  claims to the company were not explained by his previous lawyers.

“We cannot countenance such an injustice and validate a stance that our approval of a clearly lopsided motion completely precludes Co from pursuing his legal remedies,” the SC held.