100 PARAGRAPHS
of my life, honor, sweat, tears, love, and sacrifices, of my honor and my dishonor
The paid Advertisement on “Green Cross” of my siblings Anthony Co, Peter Co and Mary Co-Cho is unfortunate.

They failed to answer my August 11, 2006 Letter. I reproduced it below.

CO IT
2639 Zamora Street 1300 Pasay City, Metro Manila

Dear Mr. Alianan:
A MOST UNFORTUNATE SLUR was inflicted on my honor at the 50th Anniversary Celebration of Green Cross, incorporated in Manila Mandarin Hotel.
I was shocked to hear a niece publicly announce that my father, Co Ay Tian, founded Green Cross.
I respect my father. He is truthful and fair. He would have corrected the mistake. He knew I founded Green Cross.
I was deeply embarrassed to be disowned publicly as the true Founder of Green Cross.
The slight on my honor re-opened old wounds, and the pain lingers on. I humbly come before the Kho Association, our Family Council for healing and enlightenment.

1. This is the 35th year of the incorporation of Gonzalo Laboratories, Incorporated now known as Green Cross Incorporated.

I respectfully request the Association to reconcile family ties with my brothers and sister, and other related parties, concerning Green Cross in the hope that external actions will no longer be necessary, I wish to respectfully submit for its preventative mediation the issues in the following 100 PARAGRAPHS of my life, my blood, sweat, tears, love and sacrifices, of my honor and my dishonor.

1. IN 1952, I PLANTED THE SEED of the Green Cross business when I single-handedly organized Gonzalo Laboratories, a single proprietorship which I owned 100%.
2. In the same year, I introduced Green Cross. Zonrox followed in 1954. After years of hard work, these brands became very popular, and my business prospered. They are the flagship brands of Gonzalo Laboratories, now known as Green Cross, Incorporated.
3. In 1966, I hired, with a monthly salary, my brother, Anthony A. Co. He is next to me, but twenty (20) years younger.
4. In 1970, my brother, Joseph A. Co, the one next to Anthony, persuaded² me to convert my single proprietorship into a corporation, and Gonzalo Laboratories, Incorporated was registered on August 11, 1971³ with Registration No. 44995 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).
   2. I did not realize then that by agreeing to convert my single proprietorship into a corporation, I was opening the door for my brothers and sister to take over my business.
   3. It is providential that I should write this letter today, August 11, 2006, on its 35th year. This is my anniversary letter.
5. After incorporation, I hired my sister Mary and thereafter, my brothers Joseph and Peter, all as paid employees.
6. The authorized capital stock was P500,000 divided into 5,000 shares at P100 per share par value. Subscribed was P200,000.00 divided into 2,000 shares. The paid up was P70,000.00.
7. Gonzalo Laboratories, Incorporated was 100% my single proprietorship business. It was only given a corporate clothing. I assigned to it all the business and assets of my single proprietorship. They became the start up business and assets of the corporation.
8. Gonzalo Laboratories, Incorporated merely continued the business of my single proprietorship. The only difference is that it was registered as a corporation. Since I own the single proprietorship 100%, it follows that I own the corporation 100%.
9. I wish to emphasize that I was the only one who paid the whole P70,000.00 paid up capitalization. All the subscription rights also belong to me.
10. None of my brothers and sister nor my parents paid with their own money for the shares which I placed in their names by way of implied trust.
    4. All the business and wealth of Green Cross grew from there.
    5. They did not have the money. My brothers and sister were only monthly paid employees.
    6. It is a well-established legal doctrine in civil law.
11. I had to name them incorporators, because at least five (5) incorporators are required by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).
12. Also, I wanted to give them self-confidence. I wanted to encourage them. They had no money. They did not do well in their own undertakings. Anthony resigned as an Architect in the William Golamco Construction in Angeles City.
13. After a little while, Anthony engaged in the garments business. It failed. Joseph’s furniture business was also unsuccessful. Peter was working with Ajinomoto in Bulacan. Mary was with a private company in Binondo. Both were monthly paid employees. They had no successful business track records.
14. I placed also by implied trust 10% shares in the name of my mother Ang Si to honor her. Later, for the same reason, shares were also placed by implied trust in the name of my father Co Ay Tian.
15. I repeat, I was the only one who paid the P70,000.00 capital of Gonzalo Laboratories, Incorporated in 1971. The other incorporators did not put in any money. The shares in their names were placed by me only by way of implied trust. The 1971 Articles of Incorporation show the following:

16. Since I placed those shares only by implied trust in the names of Anthony, Joseph, and Mary, of my mother Ang Si, I remained the real and true owner. I did not receive any monetary consideration from them.
17. Also, they did not contribute any money or capital into the corporation. The original Articles of Incorporation does not show any share in the name of Peter, because in 1971, he was still studying Engineering in La Salle.
18. Although I own 100% of Gonzalo Laboratories, Incorporated, on February 11, 1978, my shares were reportedly reduced to 25%. There were no supporting Deeds of Assignment.
19. I can categorically say that I have not freely, voluntarily, validly, and legally sold any of my shares in the corporation on or before February 11, 1978.
20. It was also reported on February 11, 1978 that the shares of Anthony was reduced from 20% to 15%, the shares of Mary was reduced from 10% to 5%, while 15% of the shares appeared in the name of Peter. Again, there were no supporting Deeds of Assignment.
    7. 50% was in my name while 50% was on implied trust in my brothers’, sister’s and mother’s names.
    8. Although it could be subject to SEC Investigations and Complaints, the reason why there were no Deeds of Assignment could be because the shares are only in their names by way of implied trust and I did not really intend to transfer the title of ownership of the shares to them. The implied trust is the Chinese way of sharing trusts. However, I keep the title.
    9. Ibid.
21. The deducted shares, despite the absence of Deeds of Assignment, were reported to the SEC as corresponding to the names to the names of the following:

22. On December 15, 1986, just four (4) days before I was forced under moral duress to sign the false *Deed of Absolute Sale” on 874 shares, my shares were again reduced to 17.5%. I do not agree to that reduction. I do not know who reduced my shares.
23. The 17.5% which disappeared from my name were reported to SEC as corresponding to the names of the following.

24. Since he was still a student then, Peter had no shares in his name when the corporation was registered in the 1971. It was only on February 11, 1978 that 15% was reported to his name. However, on December 15, 1986, it became 17.5%
    10. Ibid.
25. Four (4) days after, or on December 19, 1986, it was reported to have gone up to 21.2%. It became 29.1% in 1991. Again, except for the report, there were no supporting Deeds of Assignment.
26. There was no transfer of ownership of the shares. There was only a definition of the implied trust distribution. However, my implied trust was taken advantage of. They misappropriated my shares in violation of my intention to merely entrust those shares in their names.
27. It seems that they were able to transfer the title of ownership. I did not sign any Deed of Assignment or Sale on the 50% of the shares which I merely placed in their names during the 1971 Incorporation. It is false and illegal for violating my intention, and for lack of payment and consent on my part. I wish to correct this wrong. I want to get back the title to the shares.
28. The shares were always under implied trust. I had no voluntary intention to transfer their title of ownership. However, the implied trust was abused and they converted the trust shares into their own and they took over the corporation. While I placed in implied trust in the 1971 incorporation only 10% on Joseph’s name, as of February 11, 1978, Joseph’s shares went up to 15%.
29. Again, on December 15, 1986, like Peter, the equity of Joseph was reportedly 17.5%. Again, four (4) days after, or on December 19, 1986, it was reported to have increased again to 21.2%.
30. As of December 19, 1986, Joseph and Peter were reported to have 21.2%. It became 29.1% in 1991 for each of them.
31. In the case of Anthony, I placed 20% by way of implied trust in his name in the 1971 incorporation. It went down to 15% in 1978, but went up to 18.2% in 1986, and 29.1% in 1991. It was already 29.1% in 1991. Just like Peter and Joseph.
32. I also placed by way of implied trust 10% in the name of Mary in the 1971 incorporation. But by 1986 it was reduced to 6% then it went up to 12.7 in 1991.
33. What is now clear is that by 1991, Peter, Joseph and Anthony had reported in their names 29.1% each while Mary had 12.7%. That is a total of 100% of the shares of the corporation in their names.
34. No matter how their shares distribution moved, the movement did not change the fact that they are only trust shares. I signed no document revoking the trust and converting the shares into their names as real owners and not merely as trustees.
35. As their eldest brother, my intention was only to help them and share some income of the business. However, although I only entrusted shares to them as my trustees, they took advantage of my trust and misappropriated the title of ownership on the shares. They took over my business. It was not my intention to give it to them. It is abuse of brotherly love and confidence.
36. Instead, they took my business from me. I did not intend to give the corporation to them. I was ousted. I am not even recognized as its Founder as if they do not want to look back at those long years when I planted the seed of the business.
37. Anthony said that they watered the business and therefore it belongs to them. What would they have watered if I did not plant the seed? Didn’t I water and nurture it in the fragile and crucial phases of its life? Didn’t I water it longer than them? Didn’t they water it only when it was already sturdy and full grown and could already stand on its own? Don’t I own the seed which now stands as a tall tree? Don’t I own the tree and its fruits? The owner of the seed, and its planter, has a better right than the watering crew.
38. I would like to go back and explain the 33.4% of my father Co Ay Tian and my mother Ang Si. I also placed them in their names by way of implied trust. They were my trustees.
39. However, instead of those shares returning to me when they passed away in 1989 and 1991, they were divided among Peter, Joseph, Anthony and Mary, to my exclusion and deprivation.
40. After December 19, 1986, the shares distribution in the corporation were reported to the SEC as follows:

41. Even assuming only for the sake of discussion, but without admitting, that those shares which I entrusted in the name of my parents are to be treated as inheritance, and not as shares whose beneficial, interest belong to me, at the very least, 1/5 of the shares should have been given to me since I am a compulsory heir.
42. Without even a single share going to my name, those 33.4% shares in my parents’ names were reported with the SEC as now corresponding to and distributed to my brothers and sister as follows:

43. I do not know of any extrajudicial partition of the estate of our parents. I also do not know if inheritance taxes were paid in the transfer of the shares from the estate of my parents to that of my siblings.
    11. They could be investigated by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (“BIR”).
44. I also do not know if taxes were also paid in the transfer of the title of ownership of shares and the additional shares into the names of my siblings and to the new shareholders.
45. I feel aggrieved. I was the one who worked very hard to establish the business single handedly in 1952. I was the one who capitalized it, and own all the shares.
46. I marketed Green Cross and Zonrox. I made them very popular brands which sold a lot of products and made the corporation very rich.
47. However, after thirty four (34) years, I ended up in 1986 with only one (1) share to my name as reported in the SEC. By 1991, not even one (1) share was left in my name. Worse of all, in 2002, I was even disowned as the Founder of Green Cross.
48. Why do they want to erase all those years of my sacrifices for the business? Why were they falsifying history? Is it their intention to give the impression that they inherited the business from our father that is why they announced that he is the Founder? They are wrong, because our father will not agree to dishonor my sacrifices. He would not want to hurt me.
49. I merely placed in trust in the names of my parents and of my brothers and sister the shares which were reported to the SEC as corresponding to their names.
50. If I sold the 100% shares to them, I should have been paid, and taxes should have been paid also. However, I was not paid and I did not pay taxes, because I did not sell them. Again, I emphasize, I did not sign a Deed of Assignment or Sale of the 33.4% shares in my parent’s names and the 50% in my brothers and sister’s names in 1971 when we incorporated.
51. I understand that the law considers placing those shares in their names as an implied trust and I retain the beneficial interest on all those shares.
52. The way I understand it, I retain to this day the title of ownership and the beneficial interest on all the shares listed in the Articles of Incorporation, and all those which were reported to the SEC, as corresponding to the names of my parents and of my brothers and sister.
53. It means that I keep to this day the legal title to the beneficial interest on the 50% shares of the corporation, and their fruits, which I placed by way of implied trust in 1971 in the Articles of Incorporation as corresponding to those of my brothers and sister. I like to get back all those shares.
54. After all, I merely entrusted them impliedly in their names and all these years they have already been able to provide generously to themselves and to settle comfortably their families. All of them now reside in the exclusive village of Ayala Alabang, while me and my sons live in a modest compound in Zamora, Pasay City.
55. I have done my duty as their eldest brother. I have shared with them much more than they could earn on their own in 1971 when I extended them a hand. They had no money in 1971 when the business was incorporated, so I paid them monthly salaries, and I placed shares by implied trust in their names. Now, they are all multi-millionaires, unlike me and my children.
56. I believe that I have already honored the Chinese tradition and duty of the eldest in the family taking care of his younger siblings. It is now the time for me to honor and fulfill my own obligation to my children both under Chinese tradition and under the law. I want to share with them now the beneficial interest on those shares. I think that is only fair.
57. I found out that in the percentage of the shares which I placed on trust in the names of my brothers and sister had been substantially transferred in the names of their children. “It was never my intention to transfer the implied trust on those shares in the names of my nephews and nieces. My duty is first to myself and to my own children. They have the right to those shares, since they actually belong to me. I am their rightful owner.
    12. It is an attempt to erase the “trust” nature of the shares and to remove them farther from my reach. In addition, they increased the capitalization inorder to dilute my shares or to shield them farther from me. Subsidiary companies were organized locally and abroad, (there could be questions of money laundering,) and other investments were made outside of the corporation to siphon its resources or keep them away from me as far as possible. Corporate funds are at risk of being dissipated when used for personal purposes like the purchase of race horses by Joseph.
58. My implied trust on my shares were violated when the title of ownership were transferred in the names of the trustees, and when they, in turn, transferred the title on substantial shares in the names of their children.
59. I have therefore decided to assert my title of ownership to and beneficial interest on those shares as the trustor. I wish to take them back. It is unfair to me, and to my own children, that we do not benefit from those shares, while my nephews and nieces, who are not my original designated trustees, are instead the ones who benefit from them.
    13. Claims do not prescribe if there is fraud, deceit, or duress, as in this case.
60. I also believe that I continue to keep until today the title of ownership to and the beneficial interest on the 33.4% of the corporate shares, and their fruits, which I placed by implied trust as corresponding to those of my parents.
61. Therefore, when they passed away, those shares automatically returned to me, since I own them. I cannot inherit my own shares. My rights over them are not merely “inheritance rights” but “ownership rights.”
62. Also, by 1986, the brands “Green Cross” and “Zonrox,” which I developed, and which I own, have gained tremendous proprietary values. However, they appear to have ended up in the name of the corporation although I never sold them. I must make it clear that the sale of the brands is not a closed issue.
63. I wish to be paid royalties by the corporation for the use of those brands since 1971 until the present, and until they continuously use them. If the corporation wants to buy them, I wish to be paid a true, fair and just amount.
64. With respect to what I stated on par. 22 that I signed on December 19, 1986 a “Deed of Absolute Sale” for 17.5% or 874 shares, I would like to inform the Kho Association that, First, the money which was paid to me came no less from the very corporation which I, myself, own.
65. I feel uneasy that it was no less my own corporation which paid me those shares. Second, despite the fact that it was the corporation which paid for them, the shares were not registered in the name of the corporation. Instead, they were reported to the SEC in the names of my siblings (who did not pay for them). It means they used corporate funds for personal use. That is wrong and irregular.
66. If the corporation paid for the shares, they should be in the corporate name, not in the names of my individual siblings. Also, it is unfair that my own corporation should be the source of the funds which were paid in the purchase of my own shares.
67. The name of the corporation was changed to Green Cross, Incorporated in 1989, because of the very high proprietary value and goodwill of the name, Green Cross is a by word and very popular.
68. Although I own that brand and name, it is tragic that now I don’t own even only one (1) share in the corporation, and I am even publicly disowned as its Founder.
69. In 2003, the percentage shares distribution of Green Cross, Incorporated was reported (without supporting Deeds of Assignment) to the SEC as follows:

70. A careful study of the movement of shares from 1971 to 2003 and until the present will show that they are merely “trust” shares whose title of ownership were converted, without my consent, in the names of Joseph, Anthony, Peter, and Mary, and their children, for the purpose of taking over the control of the corporation, in violation of my rights as the trustor-owner of those shares.
71. Looking back, I try to understand why I lost all those shares. In 1986, out of the blue, my brother Joseph engaged in a heated argument my eldest son Syril in Mandarin Hotel over a very petty matter involving “cotton buds.” Immediately after, Joseph confronted me. Joseph was shouting and very angry. He repeatedly demanded that I decide who between him and me should leave the corporation.
72. It was a calculated move. Joseph wanted the corporation. He made up that incident so he could take over. He was angry at my son Syril. I did not want to add fire to the quarrel. I am father to Syril, and brother to Joseph. I told Joseph no one should leave the corporation. I wanted to keep my family intact. I did not want them to quarrel.
73. To pacify Joseph, I signed all documents which he made me sign without reading them. I signed under moral duress or compulsion. I did not want to embarrass him nor to show that I did not trust him. I was afraid that if I refuse, he will quarrel with me and my family will suffer. However, they knew from the beginning, and I never forgot, that all the shares belong to me.
74. Today, I have nothing but regrets and disappointments in my heart, as I look back to that day of December 19, 1986 when Joseph made me sign that false “Deed of Absolute Sale” on my 17.5% or 874 shares.
75. I regret signing it. I like to cancel that document, and all documents he made me sign, and which I did not really intended to sign. In fact, I did not read them before signing. I was afraid. I only signed them so he would not get angry. Also, I must make it clear that the 17.5% is not a closed issue. I would like to clarify it in the interest of, fairness, truth and family relationship.
76. Although I was paid P9 Million in installments for that “Deed of Absolute Sale” on the 17.5% in 1986, I honestly believe that it was a false sale. It was invalid and void, because my siblings did not pay me with their own money, but with the money of the corporation which I own.
    14. It was undervalued in the Deed of Absolute Sale as P87,000.00. BIR can also investigate it.
77. Since they were paid by the corporation which I own, it means that, again, I also own those shares. The truth is, it was a false sale. It hurts me to think of it. They took my shares and paid me with my own money. Yet, not one of the shares is in my name. That is really painful.
78. I never intentionally and lawfully parted with that 17.5% in 1986. I believe I own 100% of the corporation, namely, the original 50% equity in my name, and the 50% which I placed by way of implied trust in the names of my siblings and of my parents, which automatically returned to me when they passed away.
79. I wish also to clarify and seek enlightenment from the Kho Association on the issue of the 2001 five (5) Deeds of Donation and five (5) Deeds of Trust. Again, I like to say that they are not the payment for the brands. The issue on the ownership of the brands is not a closed issue. I wish to explain that Green Cross, Incorporated was not the donor nor the trustor.
80. The donors and trustors were individual persons. They were my brothers Anthony (P15,020,000), Peter (P14,000,000), sister Mary Co Cho (P11,000,000), niece (daughter of Joseph) Joanna Co Yap (P800,000), and nephew (son of Joseph) Jim Lewis T. Co (P200,000). A similar amount was placed in trust for me.
81. Nobody should say that the money donated and placed in trust was payment “for the brands “Green Cross” and Zonrox”. The brands were not transferred in the names of the individual donors and trustors.
    15. If it were a sales transaction, taxes should have been paid. BIR might look into it.
82. They are registered in the name of the corporation. If the donation and trust money were to pay for the brands, then the corporation should have been the donor and trustor.
83. If the intention was to pay for the brands, then the transaction should have been documented as a sale of the brands, and not as Deeds of Donation and Deeds of Trust, all of which did not say that the donation and the trust money were the payment for the brands.
84. All the five (5) Deeds of Donation uniformly state that the donation is given:

“Out of benevolence, brotherly love and concern”

85. All the five (5) Trust Agreements uniformly state the trust is established:

“Out of love and concern”

86. It should be clear enough that the Donations were given and the Trusts were established gratuitously “out of love and concern”, and were not payment for the brands “Green Cross” and “Zonrox”.
87. I appreciate that the Donations and the Trusts were gratuitously given “out of love and concern”. However, I do not want to think that the money came from no other source but Green Cross, Incorporated.
88. It would pain me to think that what was declared as given to me “out of love and concern”, actually came from my own corporation. If what was given to me was my own money my own blood and sweat, it is not right to make it appear that it was given “out of love and concern”.
89. It hurts me more to hear my siblings say that the Donations and Trust Funds were the payment for the brands. If that is true, why did they claim they donated and entrusted to me the funds “out of love and concern”?
90. I was told that the trustors will terminate the Trust Agreements and deprive me of the trust funds (which I use for my personal needs), if I make any claims against the trustors or relatives up to fourth degree. Why will they do that if they gave “out of love and concern”?
91. However, I was advised that I should not be disqualified from the trust funds if I impute to the trustors any criminal offense provided that the crime or the act has been committed against me. I must clarify that I am the claimant or the complainant and not any of my children.
92. Assuming without admitting but only for the sake of discussion that the Donations and Trusts are indeed the payment to me for the brands “Green Cross” and “Zonrox”, I believe that P81M is too insufficient a consideration. The issue of the sale of the brands is therefore not a closed issue, and must be resolved.
    16. San Miguel Corporation reportedly paid for P2.9B for the “8 o’clock” Brand. Green Cross and Zonrox are older, more popular, and institutionalized.

93. I deserve a better consideration, because the brands are very popular and they earned, and continue to earn, a lot of money for the corporation which had a gross sales of more than P1 Billion in 2005.
94. Based on the same assumption that the Donations and Trusts, as they claim, are the payment to me for the brands, if I were them, I will not terminate the Donations and the Trust Agreements. Otherwise, there will be no payment for the brands, in which case, the absence of payment or consideration shall invalidate and void their claim over the brands.
95. If they take back the Donations and the Trust (which they insist are the payment for the brands), it means that they are taking back the payment for the brands.
96. Therefore, they should return the brands to me and pay me royalties for their use. Otherwise, if they really want to own the brands, they should pay for them properly.
97. Also, assuming without admitting but only for the sake of discussion that the December 19, 1986 Deed of Absolute Sale for 17.5% should be recognized, I also believe that the P9M paid to me is too insufficient.
98. Just like the insufficient “payment” for the brands, I deserve more for those shares. Again, if they cannot pay the fair market value for those 17.5%, they should not make it appear that they own them.
99. However, if only to open options for conciliation, assuming also but without admitting, and only for the sake of discussion, that the brands and the 17.5% are already fully paid and should be considered as closed issues, how about the 33.4% shares I places in implied trust in the names of my parents and 50% shares I also placed in implied trust in the names of my brothers and sister?
100. I understand that when I placed those shares in their names, there was established an implied trust. It means that I keep the beneficial interest of the shares, and their fruits. They are merely my trustees, while I am the beneficiary.

I must repeat, I did not sign the Deeds of Assignment or Sale on those shares, particularly the said 50%. Their only basis is what appears in the 1971 Articles of Incorporation. However, they should admit that I merely placed those shares in their names only as a matter of implied trust. After all, they cannot deny that they had no money in 1971.

I am now revoking that implied trust and I wish to get back those 83.4% shares in Green Cross, Incorporated.

BEFORE I CLOSE THIS LETTER, I would like to tell the Kho Association a story that shows how much I love my brother Anthony. In 1968, I gave Anthony 391 sq. m. (Lot 7) or ½ of a 782 sq. m. property in Sun Valley Subdivision for him to build a house where he and his family could stay, in hope that having a house will bring peace to the persistent conflict in their marriage.

The lot was in the name of my wife. She did not want to part with it, but I prevailed and I made her sign the documents. Of course, my brother does not need that place anymore because he now lives in Ayala Alabang. Despite that, his family has not even made a gesture to return the property. Worse, the other half (Lot 8) was also registered in Anthony’s name in 1986, although it was not my intention to give it to him.
I have to tell this story in closing so that the Kho Association will understand how far I went to show my brothers how much I love them. It is regrettable that while I started everything, and gave to my brother even the lot of my wife, over and above her feelings, yet, I am now left with nothing, no shares in Green Cross, and no honor as the Founder. They got everything, and left me nothing but the abuse of the brotherly affection I gave them. Deep in my heart I feel that they took advantage of me.

I know my wife, Katherine (SIA SIU ENG), who is now in Heaven and whom I love dearly, is watching. She appeared in my dreams many times telling me to wake up and recover what belongs to me.
Her soul shall not rest until I recover my corporation, including her Sun Valley lot. Please, help me heal the memory of my wife.

Again, I cannot forget the deepest hurt of all is when I was publicly disowned as Green Cross Founder. I should not forget to say I was renounced as the founder in 2002. It was right after the 2001 donations and trusts were made. It saddens me to think that the timing was deliberate, as if they were saying that they also paid my honor, my soul’s most precious possession.

I am 85 years old. As I walk towards the sunset of my life, I look up to the Kho Association, our Family Council, for guidance. Please give me the wisdom and the light to find lasting peace in my family.

I COME TO THE KHO ASSOCIATION to make a plea to help me and my family achieve unity so that all the members may live in harmony and friendship.

I most respectfully implore the Association to use its fair and noble ascendancy as elders of wisdom and respect to give me and my family the enlightenment to help us reconcile and resolve all those open issues, in the name of fairness, justice, and truth.
Please accept my sincere gratitude in advance, I remain

Very truly yours,

CO IT
a.k.a. Gonzalo Co

Copy Furnished:

1. MR. CO TIU CHIU
   President, Philippine Kho Association

2. Brother ANTHONY A. CO
   408 Agoncillo Street
   Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa City
   Metro Manila

3. Brother PETER A. CO
   410 Agoncillo Street, Ayala Alabang
   Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila

4. Sister MARY CO CHO
   412 Agoncillo Street, Ayala Alabang
   Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila

5. Sister-in-Law LUCY SO HUA CO
   (widow of Brother Joseph A. Co)
   844 Acacia Avenue, Ayala Alabang
   Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila

This Letter encapsulates my ownership of “Green Cross” and “Zonrox”. God is my witness. I abide by HIS WILL