THE long-running feud of the Yanson siblings over the control and management of the Vallacar Transit Incorporated (VTI) bus empire escalated during the weekend, this time drawing in a verbal tussle between the two camps’ legal teams.
Lawyers from the VTI and “Yanson 4” camps have accused each team of allegedly issuing “misleading” and “inaccurate” statements related to the June 21, 2023 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) related to the qualified theft case filed against siblings Roy Yanson, Ricardo Yanson Jr., Ma. Lourdes Celina Yanson and Emily Yanson, collectively known as the Yanson 4 siblings.
The CA had upheld the December 2, 2022 decision of a Bacolod trial court which found probable cause to indict the four siblings with theft and issue a warrant of arrest against them.
Qualified theft charges were filed against the Yanson’s siblings in connection with the supposed missing equipment, documents, and other assets during their attempted takeover of the operation of the bus firm.
The four siblings have questioned before the CA the “inordinate delay” in the RTC’s resolution of their urgent motion assailing the warrants issued against them in violation of the rules.
Aside from the qualified theft charges, the Yanson 4 are also charged with carnapping and grave coercion charges before Branch 53 of the Bacolod City RTC.
VTI legal representative Madrid Danao & Associates alleged Sigfrid Fortun, lawyer of the Yanson 4, issued misleading” claims when he said that the CA had nullified the warrant issued by Bacolod City RTC Branch 44 Presiding Judge Ana Celeste Pinero Bernad on December 2, 2022.
In a statement, lawyer Peter Paul Danao said Fortun’s claim was misleading as the appellate court made it clear in its June 21 resolution that it affirmed the Bacolod RTC’s ruling on the issuance of warrant of arrests.
“True, the CA Cebu in its decision dated September 14, 2022 initially voided the original warrant of arrest issued by the lower court for failing to comply with her constitutional mandate. However, Atty. Fortun omitted that the lower court, in compliance with this CA decision, subsequently issued a revised and expanded Order dated December 2, 2022 discussing and finding probable cause against the Yanson 4. The CA then affirmed this in its Resolution dated June 21, 2023,” Danao said.
He said the appellate court in the same June 21 resolution even praised the Bacolod RTC’s decision for issuing its December 2, 2022 order declaring that it “was an exercise of her inherent power to amend and control the court’s processes and orders as to make them expeditious and still conformable to law.”
“If Atty. Fortun claims that there is no existing valid warrant for qualified theft against the Yanson 4, then why did he appeal the CA Resolution dated June 21, 2023 to the Supreme Court? And more curiously, why are the Yanson 4 still in hiding abroad since March 2020?” Danao asked.
