VTI dispute clarified

Last week, it was reported in this column that the Court of Appeals’ 19th Division has affirmed the warrants of arrest and hold departure orders issued by the Bacolod Regional Trial Court against four of the Yanson siblings whose family owns Vallacar Transit Inc. (VTI), said to be the country’s largest bus transport company.

As reported by several media outfits, siblings Roy, Ricardo, Ma. Lourdes Celina and Emily Yanson, collectively known as the Yanson 4, were accused of committing qualified theft based on a complaint filed by their brother Leo Rey, sister Ginette Dumanacas and mother Olivia in connection with the alleged missing equipment, documents and other company assets during their July 2019 attempt to take over control and management of VTI.

According to lawyers Philip Sigrid Fortun and Sheila Sison representing the Yanson 4, the CA-Cebu in fact stood by and affirmed its original decision nullifying the arrest warrants issued by the lower court against their clients.

In a letter to this writer, they said the CA actually denied the respondents’ request to reverse the appellate court’s decision voiding the arrest warrants against the four.

They noted that in its 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.”

Fortun and Sison said contrary to information provided by Leo Rey’s lawyer which states that “while it is true that the CA-Cebu in its Sept. 14, 2022 decision initially voided the original warrant of arrest issued by the lower court, the CA recently issued a new order affirming Bacolod RTC Judge Ana Bernad’s order,” there is no such new order.

In last week’s column, I quoted Leo Rey’s lawyer as saying that Atty. Fortun “omitted the fact that the lower court, in compliance with the Sept. 14, 2022 decision, subsequently issued a revised and expanded order dated Dec. 2, 2022 finding probable cause against the Yanson 4 and that the CA-Cebu affirmed this in its resolution dated June 21, 2023.”

In their letter, Fortun and Sison explained that there were actually two orders dated Dec. 2, 2022 and the so-called expanded order is precisely still being questioned by their clients and the subject of the supplemental petition filed with the CA-Cebu, which it denied admission.

“Suffice it to say that our clients have availed of the proper remedies under our court system and we remain wholly trusting that justice will prevail in the end. But what is clear and plain however from the June 21 CA resolution is that the appellate court denied the request of the respondent to reverse its earlier decision nullifying the arrest warrants of our clients,” they said.

They also pointed out that they have yet to receive any timely appeal filed by the respondents to question the denial of their partial motion for reconsideration requesting the abandonment of the nullification of the arrest warrants that they sought against the Yanson 4, adding that without the proper appeal or availment of legal remedy in the denial of their partial MR, the nullification of the arrest warrants originally issued by the lower court will attain finality.

Fortun and Sison likewise said contrary to what was reported in this column last week, there is no such order in the CA June 21 resolution that found the order finding probable cause against their clients to be in order. On the contrary, they stressed that the appellate court did not pass upon the validity of what respondent’s counsel claimed as a “revised and expanded” Dec. 2, 2022 order since according to the CA, “as to whether public respondent’s order dated Dec. 2, 2022 has complied with public respondent’s constitutional mandate, the question is no longer within the scope of what needs to be addressed in order to dispose this petition.”

They added that the June 21 resolution actually denied both parties’ partial MRs, including that one filed by respondent’s counsel requesting for the reversal of the nullification of the arrest warrants issued by the trial court.

Fortun and Sison said that what was not disclosed by Leo Rey’s lawyer to this writer is that: first, in an Oct. 29, 2021 decision, the CA-Cebu had actually granted the petition filed by the four Yanson siblings and reinstated their complaint against Leo Rey which challenged the validity of the August 2019 special stockholders’ meeting; second, that in an order dated July 26, 2019, the RTC-Bacolod Branch 53 denied the application for a TRO of Leo Rey against the four wherein he also asked to be reinstated as VTI president; third, that two weeks after and despite the denial of his TRO application against the four and the in existence of any status quo ante order reinstating him to his position as VTI president, Leo Rey and his group unjustifiably removed the four from their peaceful possession of the company premises without any court order; fourth, that no court to this day has pronounced the four guilty of any crimes that they were accused of; fifth, that on the contrary, several decisions by the trial courts had ordered the quash of arrest warrants issued against the four and the suspension of the criminal proceedings against them due to prejudicial questions; sixth, that this question involves determine which faction is the legitimate board of directors of VTI and the other Yanson bus companies left by their father; seventh, that the answer can simply be found in Section 22 of the Revised Corporation Code; and lastly, the authority claimed by the competing faction, including the authority to file suits in behalf of the corporations is still being litigated and the subject of ongoing proceedings.

For comments, e-mail at [email protected]