THE Bacolod City Regional Trial Court Branch 45 has dismissed the petition for injunction filed by the Yanson 4 against Vallacar Transit Incorporated (VTI) president Leo Rey Yanson for "lack of merit."
Based on a court order signed last September 24 by Judge Phoebe Gargantiel-Balbin, the instant petition filed by Roy Yanson is "dismissible on the ground of forum shopping, under the Interim Rules in relation to the Rules of Court."
The judge pointed out in the ruling that there are pending cases before the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City involving the same issue and among the same parties. Thus, the instant petition ought to be dismissed for willfully and deliberately splitting a cause of action or "litis pendentia."
While it may be true that there is no willful and deliberate forum shopping on the part of Roy Yanson's camp, the rule is clear that forum shopping is a ground for dismissal of a case.
It added that the determination of all corporate concerns between the parties could be best resolved with finality and without conflicting judgment if lodged in one court alone.
With the court ruling, lawyer Norman Golez, legal counsel of Leo Rey, said whatever question regarding the legality of Leo Rey's authority over VTI including the August 19, 2019 stockholders and board meetings where the Yanson matriarch, Olivia, was elected as member of the board, was put to rest.
Earlier in August, Roy, along with his siblings Ricardo Jr., Celina, and Emily, filed an injunction petition against Leo Rey to invalidate his call for special stockholders meeting on August 19.
The Yanson 4, through their spokesperson lawyer Raul Bitoon, said the decision is only temporary.
“The decision is clearly a setback to the Yanson 4. But it is only temporary,” Bitoon said.
"We are aware that decisions like this could be appealed or a motion for reconsideration could be filed. But as to which remedy to take, it will be taken by lawyer Sigfrid Fortun which I am not aware of this time," Bitoon said.
"Although we do not agree, we respect the decision as we respect the integrity of our legal system," he added.
He said they believe that the special stockholders meeting was null and void from the very beginning because it did not constitute a quorum.