On Yanson feud: Court to hear forum shopping case on October 1

THE court has set the hearing to dismiss the petition for injunction with prayer for the issuance of temporary restraining order filed by the lawyer of Leo Rey Yanson, Olivia Yanson and Ginnette Yanson Dumancas pertaining to the special stockholders meeting they held on August 19.

Norman Golez, legal counsel of Leo Rey’s camp, said that they filed a motion to dismiss based on the argument that all the injunction cases including the mandamus cases violated the rule on forum shopping.

“We demonstrated before the court how they committed a willful and deliberate forum shopping which would result not only outright dismissal of cases with prejudice to its refiling but it’s also the party including their counsels could be administratively and criminally liable,” Golez said.

“After a lengthy argument, the judge deemed it appropriate not to proceed with urgent motion for special raffle as the Urgent Motion for Special Raffle was already pending after the plaintiff sought the inhibition of Judge Eduardo Sayson. So in effect our motion to dismiss would have to be resolved first before any further proceedings could proceed,” Golez said.

He added that all the cases that were filed by the camp of the Yanson four referring to Roy Yanson, Celina Yanson Lopez, Emily Yanson, and Ricky Yanson emanates from the same set of facts and that the July 7 meeting that they camp held was null and void for lack of a quorum and for failing to comply with the Notice and Call Requirement under the bylaws of the Vallacar Transit, Inc.

Golez also cited that the Supreme Court has held many times,”that even if you have difference reliefs but if it’s an offshoot of the earlier cases then you shouldn’t file a new case instead you should assert your causes of action in the same case which is precisely what’s happening here and they committed the splitting of the call of action.”

On the part of the Yanson four, their lawyer Sheila Sison said that they made clear before the court Friday that they did not violate that rule on forum shopping. “In fact this case is separate and distinct from all the other pending cases,” she pointed out.

She said that Golez was given ten days to file his reply to their opposition to the motion to dismiss and they were also given five days to file our rejoinder.

“What is important is that Atty. Fortun earlier made it clear to the court that it was the cause of action in this petition is distinct from that cause of action that was filed at the other Branch before Judge Eduardo Sayson’s court. This pertains to the Special Stockholders meeting that was held on August 19. The determination of quorum in the stockholders meeting is different in the board meeting and the determination of quorum is based on the numbers of directors as stated in the articles of incorporation and in the special stockholders meeting, the determination of quorum is based on the outstanding capital stock for the issuance of shares. The cause of action was not yet existing at the time that the first petition was filed. So there’s no forum shopping. Judge Tupas set the tentative hearing on October 1 for status hearing,” Sison added.