Yanson siblings’ lawyers claim arrest order was not official
MANILA, Philippines – The arrest orders used by police operatives against the Yanson siblings, who have been claiming ownership of one of the country’s largest bus fleets, were supposedly “unofficial” as they have not been released yet.
This was the claim of lawyer Sigfrid Fortun, who acts as counsel for the four siblings, after officers from the Philippine National Police’s Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) allegedly tried to make the arrest last Sunday, March 31, when the warrant was dated Monday, June 1.
“By attempting to serve an ‘unofficial’ warrant on Sunday, CIDG operatives were working outside the law with the obvious intent of harassing and embarrassing my clients and denying them the chance to seek legal redress or even post bail since courts are closed,” Fortun stressed in a statement on Wednesday.
The siblings are currently locked in a family feud with their estranged mother Olivia Yanson over the ownership of the Vallacar Transit Inc. (VTI). VTI is estimated to have at least 4,800 buses in its fleet and over 18,000 employees nationwide.
VTI former president Leo Rey Yanson was ousted in a boardroom coup last July 2019, led by his elder brother Roy and three other siblings — Lourdes Celina Yanson-Lopez, Emily Yanson and Ricardo Yanson — or the Yanson four.
However, Leo and Olivia, co-founder of the bus company, insist that the takeover was illegal and that the former still remains as president. Last August, Olivia was said to have held a meeting where a new board of directors was elected.
READ: Yansons willing to settle dispute with matriarch ‘as long as within bounds of law’
But last Saturday, a Bacolod court was reported to have issued an arrest order against the siblings over the grave coercion cases filed against them, in connection to their takeover of VTI.
Fortun said that the action from police officers should be investigated because the other party — Olivia and Leo — are trying to misrepresent the court in the implementation of warrants of arrest.
He insists that there was no arrest order released from the court last Sunday because they have filed a motion to suspend proceedings and hold the issuance of warrants, and because the involved judge never mentioned any arrest orders from the courts.
Upon inquiry from the court, the copy of the arrest order they obtained was dated June 1, Monday.
“This merits a serious investigation. It’s alarming that certain parties are trying to misuse the court system through trumped-up charges and misrepresentation in the release and implementation of unofficial arrest orders,” he claimed.
