ILOILO City – The camp of the so-called Yanson 4 refuted “inaccurate and misleading” reports being circulated online and in news outlets that the Court of Appeals purportedly “affirmed the arrest warrants” against siblings Roy V. Yanson, Emily V. Yanson, Ma. Lourdes Celina Yanson-Lopez, and Ricardo V. Yanson Jr.
The siblings are entangled in a management row with their two other siblings and mother. The Yanson family owns and operates Vallacar Transit, Inc.
According to the Yanson 4’s legal counsels Atty. Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun and Atty. Sheila C. Sison of the Fortun Narvasa & Salazar law office, “The accurate fact about that case before the Court of Appeals-Cebu in its Resolution dated June 21, 2023 that decided the Petition filed by our clients, is that it stood by and affirmed its earlier Decision dated September 14, 2022 nullifying the arrest warrants issued by the RTC against our clients.”
The Resolution dated June 21, 2023 by the 19th Division of the Court of Appeals-Cebu City stated:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Court hereby:
1. NULLIFIES the Order dated March 15, 2022 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Bacolod City in Criminal Case No. 20-52097, insofar as it directed the issuance of a warrant of arrest against Petitioners for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.
2. DIRECTS public respondent to RESOLVE the Motion for Early Resolution [Re: Warrant of Arrest] and to conscientiously OBSERVE her Constitutional mandate in doing so.
According to the Yanson 4 lawyers, both parties filed their respective motions for partial reconsideration of this September 14 Decision, which the CA-Cebu both denied in its Resolution dated June 21, 2023, that also denied the respondents’ request to reverse the court’s decision nullifying the arrest warrants, among others.
“In fact, in said Resolution, the CA-Cebu rejected the arguments and contentions of the respondents stating that the court ‘can never agree that a finding of probable cause to issue warrants for petitioners’ arrest can be premised simply upon the following statement: ‘Acting on the Motion of Private Complainant, let Warrant of Arrest issue against the accused,’” the lawyers added.
Therefore, according to the Yanson 4 camp, it is “misleading to report that the CA had ‘affirmed’ the arrest warrants.”
Their lawyers lamented that “These sub judice statements containing false and information prejudicial to our clients or to parties in pending court proceedings, in general, do not aid in and only hamper the administration of justice. It also is ‘FAKE news’”.
They also found the report “highly inappropriate” and “disrespectful” to court processes considering that the matter and issues subject of the report are still the matter of litigation before the trial and appellate courts./PN
