Actress Maribel Guardia is once again making headlines due to her legal process with Imelda Tunon, now due to statements from a lawyer who assured that the Costa Rican woman would file new charges against her former daughter-in-law. However, the celebrity was quick to refute the lawyer's statement and share her version of events. What did she say? Here we tell you.

The controversy began after lawyer Saddam Castillejo appeared as a guest on Javier Ceriani's show, where he allegedly uncovered several details about the legal dispute that both celebrities are facing over the custody of Julian Figueroa's son.

During the talk, he reported that Maribel Guardia had decided to file an injunction after custody of the minor was granted to Imelda Tunon, alleging that fundamental elements had been omitted during the process, such as an investigation file against Imelda and a foster care measure previously granted to the actress.

Likewise, he explained that the parties involved were unable to reach an agreement for cohabitation between the minor and his grandmother: An attempt was made to reach an agreement (...) but no negotiation was reached, he said on the Argentine program.

Maribel Guardia responds forcefully to the statements of lawyer Saddam Castillejo

Amid the wave of back and forth that arose around these statements, Maribel Guardia herself decided to break her silence through a statement on Instagram where she clarified that the jurist is not authorized to speak on her own behalf or that of her husband.

Although she confirmed that she is aware of her legal process, she denied that he is her representative or spokesperson: "This lawyer was only entrusted with following up on a previously filed amparo lawsuit. He does not handle any of our other legal matters, and he was never asked to speak publicly on our behalf," she stated.

Likewise, the star of productions such as "Lagunilla,"my neighborhood" and "Crown of Tears" expressed that while she does not believe the lawyer's intentions were to affect her case, she described it as extremely daring that he decided to speak on her behalf without her authorization.

"I do not believe that he acted with malicious intent toward us; however, I must make it clear that his statements do not represent our position, nor the way in which we wish to handle these issues," she concluded.