A.M. No. MTJ-17-1900. August 09, 2017. ARNEL MENDOZA, complainant, vs. HON. MARCOS C. DIASEN, JR., ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BR. 62, MAKATI CITY, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Arnel Mendoza, a driver, alleged that respondent Judge Marcos C. Diasen, Jr. engaged his services and, through a mutual acquaintance, Cristy Flores, ordered 70 sacks of rice. Mendoza guaranteed the transaction with Carolina Marketing. Judge Diasen issued a post-dated check for P112,000.00, which was later dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Mendoza, held liable by the supplier, filed this administrative complaint for violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct after failing to contact the judge for payment.
In his defense, Judge Diasen denied knowing Mendoza personally. He admitted knowing Flores and issuing the check, but claimed it was a loan to Flores for a rice-selling venture to Makati City Hall employees from which he expected profit. He alleged he stopped payment upon discovering Flores’s prior estafa convictions and her failure to deliver the rice as agreed. The investigating Executive Judge recommended dismissal due to insufficient evidence, but the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found the judge’s admitted actions constituted impropriety.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Marcos C. Diasen, Jr. is administratively liable for conduct unbecoming a judge.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Judge Diasen guilty of conduct unbecoming a judge. The Court adopted the OCA’s findings, emphasizing that the Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. Specifically, Rule 5.02 mandates that a judge shall refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the court’s impartiality or interfere with judicial duties.
The legal logic centers on the judge’s admitted conduct, not the unresolved factual dispute over the bounced check. By his own account, Judge Diasen engaged in a private business venture for profit, actively promoting the sale of rice to city hall employees and personally intervening in the logistics. This active participation in a commercial transaction, which involved individuals who could potentially be litigants before his court, demonstrated a deficiency in the prudence and discretion required of a judicial officer. Such actions created an appearance of impropriety, undermining the dignity and perceived impartiality of the judiciary. The Court modified the OCA’s recommended penalty. Considering it was his first offense and he had already retired, a reprimand was deemed insufficient. Instead, he was fined P5,000.00, commensurate with penalties imposed in similar violations of Rule 5.02.