Getting wet in the Yanson feud

By Modesto P. Sa-onoy

Let us return to the issue involving the tenant in the apartment of Emily Yanson in Sta. Clara Executive Village, Barangay Mandalagan in Bacolod because of a document I received.

As our readers will recall, the controversy involves only the attempt of a lawyer and a so-called girl Friday of Olivia Yanson who claimed ownership of apartments and in Olivia’s behalf exerted force to evict the family of Nico Causing from one of the apartments. The Causings refused to vacate because they have a contract of lease that would expire in April next year.

Apparently on instructions of the enforcers of Olivia, security guards were brought in with the consent of the officials of the subdivision and to protect his family, Nico Causing also hired security guards. Fortunately, there was no shoot-out.

The security guards were not necessary at all, but merely a show of armed force or we might say, brute power to intimidate the Causings. The enforcers of Olivia Yanson clearly underestimated the resolve of Nico to protect his family and his rights. Indeed, not everyone can be bullied to submit in the face of illegal power and display of wealth.

The case would have been a simple matter – wait for the lease to end since there’s only a year and three months left and then the Causings could peacefully leave with no rancour or power display. But arrogance, perhaps ruled over reason and Christian virtues of patience and civilized qualities of courtesy and consideration that the claimant, Olivia Yanson, went to all the trouble of forcibly ejecting the Causings.

Or the lawyers of Olivia could have gone to the proper venue, the court but the lawyer could not wait and resorted to gang-like tactics that, to reiterate what I wrote earlier, do not befit a lawyer who believes she is on the right side of the law.

Of course, lawyers can oftentimes acquiesce to the orders of their client and opt to use intimidation even against their better judgment. Should not the other option be to resign to keep faith with one’s oath to uphold the law?

Surely, Olivia would not be reduced to penury and the apartment would not fall into pieces had she or her enforcers waited a little bit. I cannot believe the claim that the apartment was already dilapidated and required repairs otherwise the Causings need not be forced to leave. They would be glad to abandon a decrepit house and stop paying a considerable rental, of course with a refund which would just be a pittance to Olivia.

But there are people that cannot be intimidated or bribed to surrender their rights. And so the controversy arose over what could have been resolved peacefully but for arrogance of power and wealth. As the French philosopher and existentialist Simone de Beauvoir said, “It’s only arrogance when you are wrong.”

From the facts, there’s a lot of wrongs in this controversy and plenty of arrogance. I have cited several of the wrongs in the way the claimed rights of the Yanson 3 were enforced but they were part of the internal problems of the Yanson family and for them to resolve.

However, the active role of the association of the village, in this case, ought not to have happened, and for the association officers to get wet in the feud. Or perhaps the better word is getting burned for those who took an active part in enforcing the questionable demands of Olivia Yanson or her enforcers.

It is a truism that those who play with fire can get burned; similarly, those who play with water get wet. In our discussion, fortunately the subdivision is just getting wet but if the situation deteriorates then the subdivision officials may get burned for a situation they should have played a neutral, nay, a conciliatory role.

I got a copy of the instructions of Mrs. Nelly D. Duckett, the president of the Sta. Clara Executive Village Residents Associations dated August 6, 2020 to the security personnel of the subdivision. She claims that she was acting “upon the request of Mrs. Olivia Yanson given last August 4, 2020.”

Acting on this “request” Mrs. Duckett “advised” the security personnel to enforce four instructions. We will discuss these controversial instructions tomorrow.