By Modesto P. Sa-onoy
Yesterday, I asked how the four Yanson children could be liable for theft, perjury and falsification but not the other two who also benefitted equally from Olivia’s allegations. That is not only fair but selective prosecution. Does Olivia hate the four so much that to “punish” them she concocted a tale and shouted, “I was robbed”? Indeed, so it seems.
The way I size her up, Olivia cannot be forced to do anything against her will, and for her to remain silent for years about the alleged theft and went around without showing any rancor against the children is strange. Although she is surrounded by a retinue of fawning friends and people with legal knowledge, it is unbelievable that she did not confide in them. She could have at least told them she was coerced but she never did until some lawyers perhaps invented a tale that served her purpose. Of course, there are more sinister reasons but let us set that matter aside for now.
I see her as a persistent person who steadfastly clings to what she believes in and is possessed with a strength of will to fight to the bitter end. Thus it is incredible that she signed a waiver twice without the full consent and remained silent for over five years.
Shares of stocks are not like a piece of cake that one grabs from another and then cut into slices for distribution. Everything in the case of shares is reckoned by documents.
Theft is a very serious charge as it entails the integrity of a person and when Olivia filed a case against her four children she impugned their integrity and family name but it seems she could not care less. But more than the blemish she cast on her children she deluded her conscience because she knew that she did not tell the truth when she wove the fiction under oath.
Now having taken a glimpse of her character, we can understand the case she filed.
How did her change of mind come about, her denial of her approval of the settlement? Let us backtrack a bit on the main points that I had discussed lengthily and in-depth since last year to place us in perspective and see the connections in all these.
The history of how these cases came about is long and adequately discussed since 2019 although new elements came into play only recently. There are many causes and effects of the family conflict but let us concentrate on the proximate cause of the case filed by Olivia Yanson.
A controversy arose after an independent financial audit of the company in late 2018 reported unaccounted funds amounting to at least P380 million. Leo Rey as president refused to explain and instead blamed his sisters. The controversy exploded into the public domain and since Leo Rey refused to explain, the Y4 held a special stockholders’ meeting in July 2019 with an intent to save the company from further financial bleeding.
As majority stockholders, the Y4 decided, among others to remove Leo Rey as President of the company considering that the failure of accounting was mismanagement. The action of the Y4 is not only common sense but accepted practice in any organization, in accord with the law and the Articles of Incorporation and By-laws of VTI. This is nothing unusual but routine in any stock corporation to immediately correct an error before it damages the company further.
From my view the change in management was vital. A study of the SGV report made things clear – Leo Rey failed in safeguarding the interest of the company, granting he is not personally involved in the diversion of company funds. The Y4 acted as a matter of necessity. I do not think there was malice or intent to degrade Leo Rey.
To complicate and obfuscate the issue, Leo did not only refuse to explain the missing million despite the findings of the independent auditors, he accused his other siblings of responsibility. To cover up his accountability and apparently with Olivia’s blessings, he created chaos and filed multiple suits against his siblings.
Olivia interpreted the Y4 decision ousting Leo Rey as an affront to her. The chaos served well for a grander objective.
Continued on Monday.
