Last year, readers of this column were informed about the ongoing legal battle over the rightful ownership of the corporation which manufactures and sells Green Cross, the iconic rubbing alcohol brand which virtually every Filipino is familiar with. Almost every home, clinic, and hospital has a bottle of Green Cross. Pharmacies, supermarkets, and grocery stores nationwide have it on their shelves.
Green Cross rubbing alcohol was created in 1952 by Gonzalo Co It. Realizing the importance of legal protection for his business, Co It registered his Green Cross trademark with the Philippine Patent Office. After that, Co It established Gonzalo Laboratories, a sole proprietorship, to manufacture and distribute Green Cross rubbing alcohol throughout the country.
From the start, Gonzalo Laboratories was the exclusive brainchild of Co It. This is obvious, because the sole proprietorship Co It created carried his name Gonzalo, and not the name of either of his parents, or any of his siblings. Indeed, Green Cross was Gonzalo Co It, and Gonzalo Co It was Green Cross.
Because his disinfectant enterprise started small, Co It worked hard to promote Green Cross rubbing alcohol nationwide. Co It sought out all the pharmacies, grocery stores, and supermarkets, and gave free samples along with his sales pitches. He also befriended the owners and managers of these establishments. Co It’s nationwide marketing strategy eventually bore fruit, and endless orders for Green Cross rubbing alcohol increasingly came in.
Because of its immense profitability, Gonzalo Laboratories was incorporated in 1971 as Gonzalo Laboratories, Inc., with Co It subscribing to about 20 percent of the authorized capital stock. Since the law on stock corporations requires a minimum number of board directors, Co it registered a few of the corporation’s shares of stock in the name of his parents and his siblings, who all held the shares as his trustees.
According to Co It’s available documentation, since an increase in the capitalization of Green Cross, Inc. became necessary when the enterprise became even more profitable through the years, Co It’s siblings deceived Co It into waiving his pre-emptive rights over the additional subscription through an arrangement which ended up reducing Co It’s shareholdings in the corporation to a minority, and which ultimately enabled his siblings to seize the controlling interest in Green Cross, Inc.
Co It’s documentation also indicates that after his parents passed away, his siblings appropriated for themselves their parents’ shares in the corporation, to the exclusion of Co It.
In June 2009, Co It filed a complaint for reconveyance with damages against his siblings before the Regional Trial Court in Pasay City. A year later, the trial court ruled that Co It’s right to sue his siblings had already lapsed. After the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial court, Co It filed the corresponding petition in the Supreme Court. That was back in 2011, when Co It was already 91 years old.
Soon after the filing of the petition, Co It was enticed by his lawyer to withdraw the petition on account of an alleged offer from his siblings to reconcile with him, and to settle the case amicably, in view of the 2011 yuletide season.
Sadly, after Co It withdrew his petition, the reconciliation and amicable settlement promised to him, and which he was looking forward to, were illusory. Worse, the Supreme Court declared the case closed and terminated as of January 2012, thus leaving Co It with the proverbial empty bag.
Co It never lost hope. He retained the services of another lawyer, Ramon Maronilla, to protect his interests. Maronilla is an ex-president of Club Filipino and a member of the Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines. Citing pertinent jurisprudence on the matter, Maronilla asked the Supreme Court to reinstate Co It’s petition.
The lawyer of Co It’s siblings is Estelito Mendoza, a famous high-end legal practitioner, and the solicitor general during the martial law administration of President Ferdinand Marcos. Mendoza opposed the reinstatement of Co It’s petition on the ground that what has been ruled upon by the Supreme Court should not be amended or reconsidered. Many observers found Mendoza’s argument ironic because on past occasions, Mendoza figured in some prominent cases where the final decisions of the Supreme Court got reconsidered and modified.
In November last year, the Supreme Court sided with Co It, reinstated his petition, and ordered Co It’s siblings to file their responsive pleading. Although Co It had passed away in the meanwhile, his family is determined to continue his legal battle.
The case in the Supreme Court is just one aspect of that legal battle. There is another one pending in the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) concerning the ownership of the Green Cross trademark, as well as the Zonrox trademark which Co It conceived and registered for a cleansing agent he marketed decades ago.
Co It’s siblings are staking a claim on both trademarks, a move Co It opposed. His family is now represented by lawyer Lorna Kapunan in the IPO case. Their adversaries are represented by a law firm based in Makati.
In the course of the proceedings in the IPO case, Co It sought leave from the IPO to file his Supplemental Appeal Memorandum. As expected, his adversaries vehemently opposed this. Last October, however, IPO Director General Josephine Santiago issued an order allowing Co It to file his Supplemental Appeal Memorandum, and directing his adversaries to file their comment if they wish to. Santiago held that every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity to have his case properly and justly appreciated, free from the constraints of technicalities.
Co It’s family is very pleased with this latest development in the IPO case. In a recent press statement, the family vowed to pursue both the IPO case and the one in the Supreme Court until the justice long denied their patriarch is finally his