By: Modesto P. Sa-onoy
When I read the claim of the Yanson 3 that the Yanson 4 who convened in their Annual Stockholders Meeting (ASM) last December 7, were impostors, I could not believe the canard. Have the Yanson 3 nothing credible but just say anything to cushion the impact of the Yanson 4 ASM? Have the Yanson 3 become fiction writers as to resort to story spinning?
These questions are necessary because while the Yanson 3 refuted the claim that the Yanson 4 have the majority shares in Vallacar Transit Inc. (VTI), the Yanson 3 did not cite any figure or number of shares that the Yanson 3 holds. As in fiction writing, the writer can always create a situation to make the reader believe the myth.
On the other hand, the issues in this family feud is not a mirage or a creation of an imaginative mind. They are based on documents, officially accepted fact. But the Yanson 3 did not even say how much shares they have in VTI. If they had included the illusory shares that Olivia Yanson claims she still has at least there is something concrete in their claim. But they did not because I suspect they did not want to get trapped.
On the contrary, the Yanson 4 press statement claimed they have over 61% of the shares of Vallacar Transit Incorporated. Compare this with the Yanson 3 claim to be the majority without citing any specific figure to clearly define their nebulous “majority”. It was a sweeping generalization, a sign of weakness in any argument.
I suspect that the Yanson 3 did not cite a figure because that claim could not be sustained or proved by documents. Indeed, if they had fifty-one or more percent, they would have trumpeted that to high heavens. One must back up a claim by specific data and in that sense the Yanson 3 failed to do so. They failed because they have nothing to show when challenged, as we do now challenge them to produce the official documents to prove they are not purveying falsehood.
Surely the Securities and Exchange Commission can easily bring that document out or the Yanson 3, collectively and individually can show their shares certificates to authentic their claim. But why didn’t they? Simply, because they can’t produce a non-existent document.
On the contrary, the Yanson 4 declared in a press statement that they are “the majority shareholders of the company, represented by Roy, Susan, Emily, Ricardo Yanson Jr. and Ma. Lourdes Celina and Juan Manuel Lopez’s holding 61.17% of its duly issued stocks”. That statement is specific enough and thus can be readily authenticated. They were not refuted with specifics.
So, how can the Yanson 4 be impostors? How can the Yanson 3 claim they have the majority shares? “Sincerity”, US President John Kennedy once spoke in his inaugural address, “is subject to proof” and so claims of ownership must be proven. In this case, the Yanson 3 failed to show incontrovertible proof of ownership of majority shares of Vallcar Transit Incorporated.
In fact, proving is easy enough. Every stockholder has a certificate, there are records of stockholders’ meetings and most of all the SEC has records of every share and the name of the owner, unless they are holder’s stocks. Thus, the kind of claim of the Yanson 3 cannot be made except by a real impostor with fake certificates.
Many lawyers are fond of quoting that the water cannot rise over its source, but they end there. The full quote from A.W. Tozer, The Root of the Righteous is interesting in these assertions by the Yanson 3 about their being the majority: “As water cannot rise higher than its source, so the moral quality in an act can never be higher than the motive that inspires it. For this reason, no act that arises from an evil motive can be good, even though some good may appear to come out of it. Every deed done out of anger or spite, for instance, will be found at last to have been done for the enemy and against the kingdom of God.” Was there evil motive?
I am amazed that the Yanson 3 could make claims that can easily be debunked by facts.
We will continue next week. Meantime have a blessed Christmas.
