Yanson cases: who lied? – 5

By Modesto P. Sa-onoy

 

From the facts now exposed and argued, is Olivia not culpable of the three crimes she attributes to her children? More so, did she not install in the corporation her two children and non-members of the family by claiming she owns the majority shares and in contravention of the provisions of the Yanson Family Constitution that she signed with her husband and children?

By these acts did she not in truth took and appropriated to non-family members the family wealth and did so under oath? Is she not by making false claims about her no longer existing shares of stock in VT culpable of perjury?

The conclusions that we can draw from these facts are inescapable not of our own opinion alone but based on the decision of the Department of Justice junking her charges against her four children. Truth must be ascertainable and her claims cannot be ascertained from the still legally binding documents.

Clearly then, Olivia’s statement that her four children stole her share, made false statements saying she no longer has a share and did so under oath, are far from the objective truth.

As she did these things do the four children have the right to strike back? But will they?

I met a man who said he had been an assiduous reader of this column. He said that he believes that the four children, despite what is being done to them still love their mother. I think so as well.

What the Y4 is doing is self-defense. I write as the facts present themselves. Indeed, from the beginning the way the Y4 handled the attacks against them, they had taken a defensive posture and thus keep the door open to reconciliation.

On the other hand, there are other forces around Olivia that must be overcome if the family were to return to harmony.

The case filed by three persons who are not family members but were “given” seats in the Board of Directors of VTI deserves to be exposed for what it is – a violation of the law and the Family Constitution. I believe that their entry into the family feud is a damper on reconciliation and another attempt to divert the issues of bad management of VTI and the highly questionable control of the company. The three had no personality to file the suit but used to give the Y2 and Olivia the time to complete their plan against the Ricardo Yanson legacy.

The case filed by Y2 supporters, Anita Chua, Arvin Villaruel and Daniel Nicolas Golez against the Y4 for perjury, according to Atty. Carlo Narvasa, “was also dismissed by the DOJ because, according to Assistant State Prosecutor Bandong, the complainants failed to establish the third (3rd) element of the crime, which is that respondents Y4 made a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood. The allegations made in the complaint are mere conclusions of law regarding the set of circumstances and/or assertions made in respondents Y4’s complaint. There was no evidence submitted that the respondents Y4 deliberately and wilfully asserted any falsehood.”

That then is a settled matter. But who are these three complainants? The news on December 6 said that they were “elected” by the board of directors of VTI in a stockholders’ meeting the previous day. I recall they were also reported to be in the Y3 controlled VTI board last year.

 

No matter who they are, their supposed election to the board contradicts the provision of the Yanson Family Constitution. To be elected to the board a person must have at least one qualifying share. However, Article XV, Section 6 (6) of the Family Constitution provides “Family members are not allowed to sell shares to outsiders”. Are Chua, Villaruel and Golez biological members of the Yanson family? Not by any chance. So, how come they are seated on the board?

 

Olivia shredded the Family Constitution by her anger thus its lofty and practical provisions to preserve the family wealth and harmony were completely ignored and impudently violated. Nevertheless, the document remains valid. The family disintegration, initiated by Olivia, mocks the legacy of Ricardo and her integrity.

 

With the dismissal of the cases, the discussion of the two complaints is academic. However, are they not criminally liable for making false accusations against the Y4?