G.R. No. 198127 - CO IT a.k.a. GONZALO CO IT, VS. ANTHONY CO, MARY CO CHO, PETER CO AND LUCY SO HUA TAN CO.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, respondents' manifestation (in lieu of comment to the petition) dated 16 January 2012 that they do not object to, in fact greatly appreciate, [Gonzalo's] "Motion to Withdraw" as it will finally put to rest any misunderstanding among the parties and that respondents be excused from filing comment on the petition is NOTED WITHOUT ACTION. [10] On 8 March 2012, our 30 January 2012 Resolution became final and executory and accordingly recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments. [11] Corollary thereto, the Decision of the appellate court in CA-G.R. CV No. 95095 affirming the trial court's dismissal of Gonzalo's complaint likewise became final and executory, ostensibly settling the issue of ownership of the subject shares of stock in Green Cross, Inc. Unexpectedly, in May 2014, we received several pleadings from Gonzalo's front: 1. Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance dated 15 May 2014 stating that: Please be notified that, upon the demand of Petitioner Co It a.k.a. Gonzalo Co It, the undersigned is hereby formally withdrawing as counsel of record in the above-captioned case. Petitioner's express conformity and consent is evidenced by Petitioner's letters dated 22 April 2014 and 6 May 2014, attached hereto as ANNEX "A-SERIES" and made integral parts hereof. [12] 2. Entry of Appearance of Gonzalo's new counsel, Ramon M. Maronilla; [13] and 3. Respectful Motion to Reinstate Petition narrating the events subsequent to Gonzalo's withdrawal of his Petition, to wit: (06) [Gonzalo] was advised by his lawyers that respondents have decided to reconcile with him in the spirit of Christmas and in consideration of his olcJ age, and to settle the inheritance problem amicably. Naturally, [Gonzalo] welcomed this information. Thus, [Gonzalo] was expecting that the supposed reconciliation will bear fruit, and that his rightful share of the inheritance will be, upon the assurance of his lawyer, give to him at last. Accordingly, and upon the instruction and recommendation of his lawyers, [Gonzalo] signed his conformity to the MOTION TO WITHDRAW. At that time, [Gonzalo] was ninety-one [91] years old already. As of this writing, [Gonzalo] is ninety-four [94] years old. (Emphasis supplied) (07) By way of its RESOLUTION promulgated on January 30, 2012, this Honorable Supreme Court granted the aforesaid MOTION TO WITHDRAW and declared the instant case terminated. Thereafter, the corresponding ENTRY OF JUDGMENT dated March 8, 2012 was issued. (08) To the utmost disappointment and disgust of [Gonzalo], the "long delayed reconciliation by and among blood relatives" upon which the MOTION TO WITHDRAW was based, never materialized. (09) But before the Honorable Supreme Court granted the petition to withdraw the case, [Gonzalo] had a meeting with respondents sometime January 16, 2012 at the Heritage Hotel to finalize their amicable settlement. In said meeting, [Gonzalo] was shocked to learn that respondents expressed no desire to amicably settle the case. Respondents eve