A FORMER executive assistant in the office of retired Associate Justice Jose P. Perez has been found guilty by the Supreme Court (SC) of less serious dishonesty for his role in luring court employees into investing their hard-earned money in a multimillion business scheme that turned out to be a scam.
In a 29-page decision penned by Associate Justice Alexander Gesmundo, the Court en banc imposed a fine against Ramdel Rey de Leon in the amount equivalent to his one-year salary to be deducted from his benefits, considering that de Leon already resigned from the Court on April 30, 2015, and could no longer be suspended.
Aside from less serious dishonesty, de Leon was also found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, violations of SC Administrative Circular 5-88, and Section 5 of Canon III (Conflict of Interest) and Section 1 of Canon IV (Performance of Duties) of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.
The complaint was filed by former Court Attorney VI in the office of Justice Perez and now-Pili Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Vivencio Gregorio Atutubo III, Deputy Division Clerk of Court Teresita A. Tuazon, and Court Attorneys Delight Aissa A. Salvador and Joevanni A. Villanueva.
The Court held that although there was no direct evidence to prove that de Leon was in partnership with his brother Rammyl and a certain Ferdinand John Mendoza, there is still basis to hold him administratively liable having acted as a recruiter for the “check-rediscounting” business venture.
“Indubitably, respondent actively participated in the series of transactions and dealings with complainants, from the time he accepted all the monies and placed it in the account of Mendoza. This constitutes as sufficient evidence to find that respondent had some involvement in the business of rediscounting checks as a ‘recruiter of third-party investors,’” the Court held.
Records showed that in 2012 de Leon took advantage of his close friendship and trust with complainants and enticed them into parting with their money and investing in his alleged business transactions. de Leon also said Mendoza was a longtime friend of his brother.
Based on the scheme and as explained by de Leon, Mendoza was into check-rediscounting with the suppliers and/or contractors of San Miguel Corp. (SMC).
De Leon explained that SMC paid the suppliers of raw materials or other products after 90 days from the date the contract was awarded and/or upon compliance/completion of the contract.
These suppliers or contractors would then approach the agents of Mendoza for them to liquidate or sell the value of their contracts at a discounted price so that they would be liquid and compliant with SMC’s requirements. Thereafter, Mendoza would contact his brother and other people willing to pool in cash to accommodate said contracts.
After pooling the cash, Mendoza would then issue post-dated checks as advance payments for their capital contributions and earned interest.
For all the capital investments, Mendoza would issue three post-dated checks: the first check to cover the principal, which would run and mature after 60 days, and the two subsequent checks to cover the 5-percent interest per month.
On June 18, 2014, respondent averred that his brother broke to him the news that Mendoza was missing and nowhere to be found.
The Court held that respondent is guilty of less serious dishonesty because he had not been honest in his dealings with the complainants.
“In spite of the knowledge regarding the collapsing investments and suspicious default payments of Mendoza, respondent continued to accommodate and accept the investments of complainants up to May 2014,” the Court said.
“If the respondent was truly concerned for complainants’ investments, he should have immediately disclosed the truth about the suspicious transactions at the very first instance and he should not have received any additional investments from complainants anymore,” the Court added. “Instead, respondent turned a blind eye to the suspicious circumstances regarding Mendoza’s payments, which eventually lead to the disappearance of complainants’ investments.”
The Court said that based on the complaint affidavit filed by de Leon’s brother against Mendoza, it was admitted that Mendoza had been defaulting in the payment of Rammyl’s investment as early as January 2014.
“Considering that respondent and Rammyl are brothers, it was improbable that the two would not share such crucial information regarding the failing investment,” the Court pointed out.
Furthermore, the Court said De Leon committed another dishonesty when he did not truthfully disclose the actual rate of interest earned from the rediscounting business of Mendoza.
Respondent admitted that complainants only received 5-percent interest per month from their investments. Glaringly, respondent did not divulge to complainants where the remaining 1-percent to 3-percent interest went.
“It goes to show that respondent is not truly straightforward regarding the interest earned in the said anomalous rediscounting business. Complainants went further by stating that the said remaining one to three percent interests were pocketed by respondent and Rammyl as their commission for the investment transactions,” the Court said. “In any case, it is clear that respondent did not honestly deal with complainants regarding their hard-earned monies.”
Furthermore, the SC said de Leon should be held liable for committing conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service as his transactions happened within the premises of the Court that placed the image of the judiciary in “a bad light.”