A.M. No. 2014-16-SC - RE: People vs Ramdel Rey M. De Leon

Case Summary (A.M. No. 2014-16-SC)

Factual Background

The complainants alleged that, from 2010 to 2013, and on different occasions during their employment in the Supreme Court—particularly in the Office of Associate Justice Jose P. Perez—respondent exploited close friendship and trust to induce several court employees to invest money in his alleged business venture. They described a story respondent presented: respondent and his brother had a network of suppliers of SMC, and those suppliers would be paid after delivery and performance. Respondent claimed that liquidity was provided for suppliers’ cash requirements so that they could comply with SMC demands, and that suppliers would be financed through a check rediscounting mechanism involving Mendoza.

Complainants stated that respondent portrayed the investment as “solid and risk-free” and emphasized that the arrangement was handled by respondent’s brother, who was allegedly a branch manager at Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), Capitol Hills, Quezon City. Respondent assured them that Mendoza’s transactions could be monitored through the BPI branch because Mendoza maintained an account in that branch. Complainants further alleged that they never actually met Mendoza and that respondent answered their queries and managed the transaction flow. They claimed that the funds were handed to respondent for deposit or otherwise facilitated by him, and that respondent later delivered checks representing their purported interest and capital.

The complainants narrated a continuing pattern of solicitation and renewals. Some invested in late 2012 and 2013. They alleged that respondent would text them for new opportunities, discuss maintaining their investments when complainants were in Manila, and present further “openings” to justify additional contributions. In their accounts, the investment matured without any disclosure of difficulty until Mendoza allegedly disappeared in June 2014, when respondent told complainants that Mendoza had gone missing and was nowhere to be found. Complainants claimed respondent initially committed to return their investments and even promised to use his savings deposit, while later resorting to shifting narratives, including that Mendoza was hidden due to alleged kidnapping by an investor who wanted to withdraw.

As the case unfolded, complainants asserted that the elaborate story gradually unraveled. They stated that respondent and his brother did not have a direct business transaction with SMC suppliers; instead, respondent and Rammyl allegedly had their own pool of “investors,” invested money only with Mendoza, and used complainants’ money as a mechanism for personal gain by “riding” on Mendoza’s scheme. Complainants also claimed that respondent continued to keep contact with Mendoza even after Mendoza went missing and that respondent only belatedly distanced himself and pointed responsibility toward Mendoza. Respondent allegedly filed a criminal complaint against Mendoza only after belatedly facing pressure from the complainants.

When the checks issued to the complainants were dishonored, complainants formally demanded payment through a written demand letter addressed to respondent, Rammyl, and Mendoza. They also alleged that respondent refused to sign the demand letter, while Rammyl signed it. Complainants then notified respondent of the dishonor and signature differences, and they listed the specific checks issued to each complainant with dates and amounts showing that the checks failed due to insufficiency of funds and other irregularities. They insisted that their preferred recourse lay elsewhere because the Supreme Court was not a collection agency. Nonetheless, they urged disciplinary action to prevent respondent from further deceiving court personnel.

Respondent’s Version

Respondent denied the allegations and offered a different account of how the investments began. He claimed that around July 2011, Rammyl asked whether respondent was interested in an “investment” that Mendoza was offering. Respondent asserted that Mendoza was known personally to Rammyl and that Mendoza’s scheme involved check rediscounting with suppliers or contractors of SMC. Respondent explained that SMC paid suppliers after a ninety-day (90) day period from contract award and/or compliance, which allegedly left suppliers needing liquidity. Mendoza’s agents allegedly sourced receivables from prime corporations like SMC, and suppliers would approach Mendoza’s agents to liquidate or sell the contract value at a discounted price. According to respondent, Mendoza then contacted Rammyl and others willing to pool cash, issued post-dated checks for principal and interest, and structured payments using multiple post-dated checks.

Respondent further alleged that he initially placed money in the investment scheme in August 2011 and that his own placements were covered by Mendoza’s checks, which he claimed he had no difficulty encashing. He asserted that his investment earnings enabled him to purchase a townhouse. He also claimed that his personal connection with the complainants grew from ordinary workplace interactions, and that he did not misrepresent partnerships. For example, he stated that Judge Atutubo became interested after overhearing conversation about the scheme and that Atutubo pressed respondent persistently to disclose details. Respondent claimed that he told Atutubo where the money was placed and who managed the placement, and he denied that he told Atutubo he and Rammyl were in partnership with Mendoza.

With respect to the complainants, respondent maintained that they approached him, asked questions about where the money was placed, who managed it, and how it earned. He claimed each complainant placed money after speaking with him and, in some instances, after speaking with Rammyl. Respondent acknowledged that he did not keep copies or photocopies of some transaction receipts and deposit slips but insisted that the bank deposits were made.

On the eventual disappearance of Mendoza, respondent averred that Mendoza went missing in June 2014 and that he and Rammyl sought help with the complainants promptly. He asserted that Mendoza communicated through counsel, and later, complainants received a statement allegedly relayed from Mendoza. Respondent contended that he and Rammyl did not default on an assumed obligation; rather, they were also victims of Mendoza. He emphasized that he relayed information from Mendoza’s counsel to complainants and set up meetings to discuss the problem, and that he denied harassing or waylaying the administration of justice.

Respondent also defended himself by pointing to his more than ten years of service in the Supreme Court without prior administrative charges involving dishonest conduct. He claimed complainants, as court employees, should not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct themselves, and they should conduct themselves with fairness, candor, and professionalism.

Trial Court/Administrative Proceedings and the OAS Report and Recommendation

The OAS issued a Memorandum dated May 19, 2015. The OAS found insufficient evidence to prove that respondent was in a true partnership with Rammyl and Mendoza in the check-rediscounting business venture. However, the OAS concluded that respondent was a recruiter of third-party investors into the Mendoza scheme and that he actively participated in the series of transactions and dealings with complainants, from accepting monies to dealing with the investment arrangements. It held that substantial evidence supported disciplinary liability because respondent violated SC-A.C. No. 5-88, and also violated the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, especially Sec. 5 of Canon III (Conflict of Interest) and Sec. 1 of Canon IV (Performance of Duties).

The OAS recommended a finding of simple dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, with a fine equivalent to the value of respondent’s terminal leave pay, in view of respondent’s resignation. The OAS also directed complainants to proceed with appropriate civil and/or criminal action in the proper forum.

The Parties’ Contentions Before the Court

The Court framed the central issue as whether respondent should be held administratively liable for dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service.

Complainants maintained that respondent committed dishonesty by lying and deceiving them to profit from their investments. They asserted that discrepancies in interest rates revealed deception. They contended that respondent and Rammyl represented a five percent (5%) monthly interest to them, while Mendoza’s amended complaint-affidavit allegedly showed that the presented interest offered to investors was six to eight percent (6-8%) per month. Complainants argued that the one to three percent (one to three percent) differential was pocketed as commission by respondent and Rammyl for recruiting third-party investors. They also alleged that respondent continued soliciting and accepting new investments from them despite knowledge of Mendoza’s default as early as January 2014, and without disclosing the true financial condition of the scheme. Complainants argued further that they never met Mendoza, did not know he was the actual source of the scheme’s principal risks, and were only misled into believing in a direct and monitorable investment operation.

Respondent, through a Rejoinder, reiterated denial of active participation and denied that the complainants’ monies were coursed through him in a manner that made him the dishonest party. He emphasized that his brother and Mendoza issued checks, that information from Mendoza’s counsel was relayed, that he was a victim, and that complainants harassed him. In the Consolidated Sur-Rejoinder, complainants reiterated that respondent’s conduct lacked forthrightness from the onset and involved non-disclosure of actual interest rates and Mendoza’s true participation.

The Court’s Ruling

The Sup

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 2014-16-SC)

The case arose from an Administrative Complaint dated November 3, 2014 filed with the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) by Judge Vivencio Gregorio G. Atutubo III, Atty. Teresita A. Tuazon, and Attys. Delight Aissa A. Salvador and Joevanni A. Villanueva against Ramdel Rey M. De Leon.
The complainants alleged dishonesty and deceit through the respondent’s solicitation of money for investments in a purported check-rediscounting business tied to San Miguel Corporation (SMC) suppliers.
The respondent was an Executive Assistant III in the Office of Associate Justice Jose P. Perez (OAJ Perez), and the controversy implicated the conduct expected of court personnel in both official and private spheres.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The complainants included court employees who were either involved directly as investors or who were solicited to invest.
The respondent was Ramdel Rey M. De Leon, a court personnel in the OAJ Perez at the time the acts were complained of.
The complainants’ complaint alleged a pattern of enticement, solicitation, and mishandling of investment funds through checks and ongoing demands for further placements.
The OAS submitted a Report and Recommendation finding that respondent was a recruiter for the scheme and recommending disciplinary action for multiple administrative violations.
During the pendency of the case, the respondent tendered resignation effective April 30, 2015, which the Court approved without prejudice to the administrative outcome.
The Court’s decision resulted from review of the OAS findings and recommendations, with modifications as to the classification and penalty.

Key Factual Allegations

Complainants alleged that from 2010 to 2013 the respondent leveraged close friendship and trust within the OAJ Perez to entice them to invest in a venture dubbed “Investment sa kapatid ni Ramdel.”
Complainants asserted that the respondent claimed his brother, Rammyl Jay De Leon, a Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) branch manager, had clients and contacts supplying requirements of SMC, and that supplies would be paid by SMC after delivery/performance.
Complainants alleged that the respondent sold the investment as “solid and risk-free” and represented that Rammyl would monitor transactions through his bank position.
Complainants alleged that the business involved a partner named Ferdinand John Mendoza, but that complainants did not meet or speak with Mendoza during the material period.
Complainants emphasized that the respondent acted as the main point person who answered questions, facilitated check deposits, delivered checks for “interest” and capital, and continued to solicit renewals and additional investments.
Complainants alleged a turning point when the respondent later claimed Mendoza had gone missing, taking the money with him, and that subsequent meetings became evasive and unproductive.
After the issuance of BDO checks covering supposed investments were dishonored for reasons including insufficiency of funds, signature differences, and account closure, complainants sent written demands and notified the respondent of the dishonored checks.
Complainants alleged that after the fraud became apparent, the respondent began distancing himself and shifting blame to Mendoza despite continued involvement in solicitation and handling of investor funds.

Complainants’ Specific Transaction Narratives

Judge Atutubo and Atty. Tuazon alleged they invested on different timelines beginning in 2012 and 2013, respectively, with solicitation and turnover of cash and checks facilitated by respondent.
Judge Atutubo and Atty. Tuazon alleged respondent continued messaging for new openings and discussed maintaining or expanding their investments during visits to Manila.
Atty. Salvador alleged respondent approached her at the cubicle level, urged her participation, and continued solicitation while representing that the rediscounting business was ongoing and profitable.
Atty. Salvador alleged reliance on assurances after speaking with respondent’s brother and described continued investment renewal up to the scheme’s failure, including respondent’s requests for immediate updates on non-renewal to fill her slot.
Atty. Villanueva alleged respondent aggressively solicited him beginning in 2013, promoted the supposed higher profitability compared with Supreme Court Savings and Loan Association (SCSLA), and encouraged a substantial investment.
Atty. Villanueva alleged documentary indicia of participation through checks issued by Rammyl, credited to Rammyl’s account, and followed by respondent’s delivery of checks covering “earned interest.”
Complainants jointly alleged that until late events in June 2014, they received no credible disclosure of failures or impending default, and respondent continued soliciting additional funds.

Respondent’s Version and Defenses

The respondent denied the allegations of deceit and argued that complainants approached and initiated the dealings with intent to gain additional income.
The respondent claimed that sometime in July 2011, Rammyl asked him about an “investment” offered by Mendoza involving check-rediscounting with suppliers/contractors of SMC.
The respondent explained that suppliers would approach Mendoza’s agents to liquidate discounted receivables and that Mendoza would contact Rammyl and other cash pool participants.
The respondent asserted that placements were covered by Mendoza’s checks and that he did not experience problems in depositing o