By: Modesto P. Sa-onoy
Before we examine the documents related to this money, I think that the issues in the company are being diverted to the search for it when the real issues are the legality of the composition of the Board of Directors of Vallacar Transit, Inc. and the control of the company. In demanding that Celina Yanson explain its supposed loss, the camp of Leo Rey is utilizing reverse psychology in the propaganda campaign.
However, by studying the documents we can trace where the money possibly went, and it surely is not the fault of Celina although she was (though she should still be) the chief finance officer. Earlier the SGV report said that she is not directly responsible for the loss. Of course, we should ask: was she indirectly accountable as the camp of Leo Rey claims?
The purpose of the examination of the several documents is to look for an explanation of the P380 million that is supposedly missing. The fact is that documents show the money did not disappear into thin air. It went to somebody and something. As I said earlier, I am not saying Leo Rey took it but because he is the company president, he cannot claim exemption from responsibility.
Note that the “missing money” was in the custody of the Manila Purchasing Office which is under the control of Leo Rey Yanson. In fact, in the July 13-14 of the Daily Guardian and earlier reports, he was ousted from the company presidency because he could not explain where this money went. Would the rest of his siblings have voted against him if his explanation was acceptable or he presented documents to show that he was not even indirectly responsible?
One of those alleged to have taken the money is the former MPO cashier, Rowena Sarona who was charged by the company for an unaccounted P27 million. In the complaint, Sarona had cashed in the checks. These checks were pre-signed, meaning that with the other authorized signatory, Sarona could cash them in. That co-signatory could be a conspirator or an unaware official. Did she deceive the co-signatory or were they both ordered to prepare and sign the check for a purpose she and the co-signatory did not know about?
Leo Rey, in that cited Daily Guardian headline, said the memorandum of December 21, 2017, co-signed by Celina Yanson, gave him powers wherein he “was not required, as company president, to explain transactions covered by miscellaneous expenses” and that the law provided him authority as president to exercise “general supervision and control over corporate day-to-day operations.”
Simply said, this authorization allows Leo Rey to spend money without being required to explain or justify his expenditures or is there a restraint on how much “miscellaneous expenses” he can make?
This memorandum appears to explain partly why the money got “missing”. Leo Rey had been president of the company for years but nothing of this kind – huge amounts of money unaccounted for – until this memorandum gave him very wide latitude of discretion. This document is dated December 2017 and the money started to “get lost” in 2018 until an audit discovered the anomaly starting with the discovery of Rowena Sarona’s alleged encashments of pre-signed checks.
In fact, we can ask: did Sarona merely take advantage of this unrestrained and “no explanation required” situation in the MPO and probably took a share of the pie? Did she find the loophole in this memorandum and joined in the bleeding of the company?
Leo Rey explained that the miscellaneous expenses amounted to only P8.5 million that he used for the welfare of the employees. This amount “may seem substantial but nowhere near the income we have earned from the hard work of our people.” That is an explanation nobody can disagree with but that does not also come closer to P380 million that the other siblings wanted an answer. Indeed, if they were satisfied, why did they oust him?
Of course, it can be argued that no matter how small or big the expenses, or to whom the money went, if the other members of the board wanted to remove him, the explanation and the amount means nothing. On the other hand, would the other siblings have removed him on a clearly inconsiderate, indefensible and inexplicable reason and for doing good?
Let’s continue tomorrow.
