The Green Cross brand of disinfectant rubbing alcohol is ubiquitous in supermarket and drug store shelves, and in hospitals in the Philippines. Since time immemorial, this trademark has been associated with hygiene and disease prevention.
Green Cross goes back to 1952 when Gonzalo Co It came up with his formula for a rubbing alcohol compound. Thereafter, Co It registered the Green Cross trademark and trade name with the Philippine Patent Office. He also established Gonzalo Laboratories, a sole proprietorship, to manufacture and distribute his product.
At first, Gonzalo Laboratories was a one-man entrepreneurial concern. In time, it became a lucrative business largely through the industry and dedication of Co It.
In 1971, Co It incorporated the business as Gonzalo Laboratories Inc. and subscribed to about 20 percent of the authorized capital stock. He likewise caused the registration of some of the corporation’s shares in the name of his parents.
To comply with the requirements imposed by law on stock corporations, Co It also caused the registration of other corporate shares in the names of his siblings.
Co It paid for all the shares of his parents and siblings, who all simply held the said shares in trust for Co It.
When the enterprise became more profitable through the years, an increase in capitalization became necessary. According to Co It, his siblings deceived him into waiving his pre-emptive rights over the additional subscription through a scheme which eventually reduced Co It’s shareholdings in the corporation to a lone share of stock. Although Co It’s parents still held a substantial number of shares in the corporation, Co It said the scheme enabled his siblings to seize the controlling interest in the profitable enterprise.
It appears that when Co It’s parents passed away, their estates were never settled. Co It said that his siblings simply appropriated for themselves their parents’ shares in the corporation, to the exclusion of Co It.
When it was clear to Co It that he had been deceived by his siblings, he decided to seek judicial relief. In June 2009, Co It filed a complaint for reconveyance with damages against his siblings before the Regional Trial Court in Pasay City.
In 2010, the trial court ruled that Co It’s right to sue his siblings had already lapsed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial court. This prompted Co It to bring his case to the Supreme Court by way of a petition for review filed in 2011. By that time, however, Co It was already 91 years old.
This is where Co It’s story gets really tragic.
It appears that Co It’s lawyer informed Co It that in view of the upcoming yuletide season in 2011, and considering Co It’s advanced age, Co It’s siblings were willing to reconcile with him, and even enter into an amicable compromise to resolve their problem.
Buoyed by the idea of family reconciliation and the prospects of a compromise settlement, Co It was convinced by his lawyer to sign a motion for the withdrawal of his petition then pending in the Supreme Court. Co it signed the motion, and his lawyer filed it in the Supreme Court. In January 2012, the Supreme Court declared the case closed and terminated.
Unfortunately for Co It, the anticipated reconciliation and settlement, which prompted Co It to withdraw his petition in the first place, never materialized. In a meeting held in January 2012 which Co It eagerly attended, he was shocked to learn that his siblings had no desire to settle the case. His siblings even berated Co It for filing the case, and demanded that Co It publish in a newspaper an apology to the local Chinese community.
Incidentally, the lawyer of Co It’s siblings is Estelito Mendoza, a famous high-end legal practitioner, and the solicitor general during the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos.
Realizing that he was duped into withdrawing his petition, Co It hired a new lawyer, Ramon Maronilla, to protect his interests. Maronilla is a seasoned litigation lawyer, and an ex-president of Club Filipino. He is also the incumbent president of the University of the Philippines Alumni Association Inc. and he currently sits in the Board of Regents of the state university.
In May 2014, Maronilla filed the pertinent pleadings seeking the reinstatement of the petition improvidently withdrawn by Co It. His theory is simple but sound—since the withdrawal of the petition was premised on a reconciliation and settlement which never materialized, the withdrawal of the petition was based on an inexistent consideration, and to disallow its reinstatement will visit gross injustice to Co It. Maronilla also cited past decisions of the Supreme Court which warrant the reinstatement of a petition improvidently withdrawn.
As expected, Co It’s siblings opposed the reinstatement of the petition and cited the rulings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals. For reasons unexplained, however, Co It’s siblings kept silent about the impetus for Co It’s earlier decision to withdraw his petition—a silence the Supreme Court noted.
During the pendency of the motion for the reinstatement of the petition, the camp of Co It’s siblings expressed confidence that Co It will never regain his Green Cross business.
Finally, in a resolution dated October 21, 2016 and written by Justice Jose Perez, the Supreme Court sustained Co It’s position and ordered the reinstatement of his petition. The High Court likewise directed Co It’s siblings to file their comment on Co It’s petition. It is not known if the siblings will seek a reconsideration.
Sadly, Co It passed away several months before the resolution in his favor was promulgated. Nonetheless, his heirs have decided to pursue the petition as part of their determined quest to recover the Green Cross business which lawfully belongs to their late father Co It in the first place.
Meanwhile, the legal battle for Green Cross continues.
