The legal counsel of Yanson siblings Roy, Ricardo Jr., Ma. Lourdes Celina Yanson-Lopez, and Emily — also known as the Yanson 4 — addressed reports claiming that the Court of Appeals (CA) had “affirmed the arrest warrants” against them as “fake news.”

In a press statement, issued by law firm Fortun Narvasa & Salazar, the legal counsel dismissed the reports as baseless speculations.

“We find these so-called news reports containing sub judice information, prejudicial to our clients, not only highly inappropriate, but also disrespectful to the court processes,” the statement said.

“We refute these inaccurate and misleading reports being circulated online and in other news outlets,” it added.

Yanson 4’s counsel asserted that the matter in question is still being litigated in both trial and appellate courts.

The accurate account of the case before the CA in Cebu City, as per its resolution dated June 21, 2023, which ruled on the petition filed by Yanson 4, is that it upheld its earlier decision on September 14, 2022.

The decision had nullified the arrest warrants due to “grave abuse of discretion” issued by the Regional Trial Court Branch 44 in Bacolod City against the Yanson siblings.

The recent resolution reaffirmed this decision and directed public respondents to resolve related motions accordingly.

It also clarified that both parties had filed motions for partial reconsideration of the September 14 decision, all of which were denied by the CA in its June 21, 2023 resolution, the press statement added.

The CA explicitly rejected the arguments of the respondents, highlighting that probable cause for arrest warrants cannot be based solely on a motion from a private complainant.

Yanson 4’s legal counsel emphasized the reports that the CA had “affirmed” the arrest warrants were misleading.

“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,” the statement said.

They also refrained from commenting on other procedural matters, stating that these were already under the jurisdiction of the courts.

The counsel further added that they have taken their case to the Supreme Court, filing an appropriate petition in that regard./WDJ