A.M. No. MTJ-17-1900. August 9, 2017.*

(formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 13-2585-MTJ)
 
ARNEL MENDOZA, complainant, vs. HON. MARCOS C.
DIASEN, JR., Acting Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial
Court, Br. 62, Makati City, respondent.

Judges; Judicial Ethics; Code of Judicial Conduct; The Code

of Judicial Conduct instructs that judges “should avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.”—
This Court adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law of
the Office of the Court Administrator. The Code of Judicial
Conduct instructs that judges “should avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all activities.” Judges must at all
times conduct themselves in a manner beyond reproach to ensure
the public’s continued confidence in the judiciary.
Same; Same; Conduct Unbecoming a Judge; Judge Diasen’s
act of attempting to sell rice to his employees and to employees of
other branches was highly improper; For his improper acts, Judge
Diasen is found guilty of conduct unbecoming a judge.—Judge
Diasen’s act of attempting to sell rice to his employees and to
employees of other branches was highly improper. As a judge, he
exercised moral ascendancy and supervision over these
employees. If the sale had pushed through, he would have profited
from his position. As the Office of the Court Administrator
observed: [Judge Diasen] cannot also deny that his position did
not influence the “would-be buyers” to actually partake in the sale
of rice. If employees of the other court branches and offices of the
Makati City Hall could be persuaded to buy the subject rice
because a judge asked them to, what more with the employees of
his own branch[?] For his improper acts, Judge Diasen is found
guilty of conduct unbecoming a judge. This Court, however, finds
that a modification of the recommended penalty of reprimand is
in order. Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, conduct
unbecoming a judge is considered a light charge, punishable by
the following sanctions: C. If the respondent is guilty of a light
charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed: 1. A fine
of not less than

_______________

*  SECOND DIVISION.
  
 
613

VOL. 835, AUGUST 9, 2017 613

Mendoza vs. Diasen, Jr.

P1,000.00 but not exceeding P10,000.00; and/or 2. Censure; 3.

Reprimand; 4. Admonition with warning.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court.

Violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

RESOLUTION
 
LEONEN, J.:
 
This is an administrative case charging Acting Presiding
Judge Marcos C. Diasen, Jr. (Judge Diasen), Metropolitan
Trial Court, Branch 62, Makati City with violation of the
Code of Judicial Conduct.
Arnel G. Mendoza (Mendoza) was a driver of a public
utility vehicle, whose services were engaged several times
by Cristy Flores (Flores). Mendoza alleged that he met
Judge Diasen through Flores and that Judge Diasen hired
his services to go to San Pedro and Sta. Rosa, Laguna.1
Mendoza alleged that on November 5, 2012, Judge
Diasen called and asked him to assist Flores in looking for
a rice retailer where he could purchase 50 sacks of rice.2
On November 6, 2012, he accompanied Flores and
introduced her to the owner of Carolina Marketing. In
order for Carolina Marketing to accept a post-dated check
as payment, Mendoza agreed to guarantee the transaction.
After, they proceeded to Makati City Hall to see Judge
Diasen, who gave them a check for P70,000.00 to pay for
the 50 sacks of rice. He also asked to increase his order to
70 sacks, replacing his first check with a post-dated check
for P112,000.00 dated Novem-

_______________

1  Rollo, p. 1.
2  Id.

 
 
614
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Mendoza vs. Diasen, Jr.

ber 16, 2012. Mendoza averred that the check was signed
in his presence and was dated November 16, 2012.3
Mendoza alleged that when the check was presented for
payment to Carolina Marketing, it was dishonored due to
insufficiency of funds. Carolina Marketing then sought
payment for the sacks of rice from Mendoza. Mendoza tried
to inform Flores and Judge Diasen about the matter but
Judge Diasen was never in his office and Flores was never
at her residence. Thus, he was constrained to file this
Complaint.4
In his Comment,5 Judge Diasen denies that he
personally knew Mendoza. As for Flores, he alleged that
she was introduced to him sometime in 2010 by a common
friend and she would often visit him at his office after work
hours, sometimes accompanied by her relatives. He
admitted knowing that Flores was single and unemployed.6
Judge Diasen alleged that sometime in 2012, Flores told
him that she needed extra income and wanted to sell rice to
employees of the Makati City Hall. Since she lacked the
required capital, he agreed to lend her money out of pity.
He claimed that the loan was on the condition that she
would show him the rice she was planning to buy and she
would pay the loan from the proceeds of the sale.7
On November 6, 2012, he issued and delivered a post-
dated check to Flores in the amount of P112,000.00. Flores
assured him that she would present the sacks of rice at the
Makati City Hall on November 16, 2012.8
He alleged that a few days after he issued the check, he
came across an envelope given by Flores sometime in 2010.

_______________

3  Id.
4  Id.
5  Id., at pp. 11-12.
6  Id., at p. 11.
7  Id.
8  Id.

 
 
615

VOL. 835, AUGUST 9, 2017 615

Mendoza vs. Diasen, Jr.
Inside the envelope were documents showing that Flores
had been previously convicted of numerous charges of
estafa.9
On November 16, 2012, he waited for Flores at the back
of Makati City Hall but she did not show up with the sacks
of rice. He surmised that Flores connived with Mendoza to
encash the check at a discounted amount but he was able
to prevent being defrauded by notifying the bank to stop
payment on the check.10
In a Report11 dated December 22, 2016, Makati City
Executive Judge Elmo M. Alameda (Judge Alameda)
recommended the dismissal of the Complaint. In the
investigation conducted, Judge Alameda found that the
submission of the photocopies of the sales invoice, check,
and check return advice was insufficient to prove that
Judge Diasen ordered 70 sacks of rice and refused to pay
for them.12 Judge Alameda noted that Carolina Anaya, the
proprietor of Carolina Marketing, failed to appear in the
investigation despite notice; thus, due execution of the
sales invoice and the check was not proven.13 He also noted
that Mendoza did not file the appropriate civil or criminal
case despite being allegedly issued a bouncing check.14
However, in a Memorandum15 dated April 10, 2017, the
Office of the Court Administrator recommended that Judge
Diasen be found guilty of conduct unbecoming a judge.16
The Office of the Court Administrator disagreed with the
findings of Judge Alameda and noted that he arrived at his
conclusion

_______________

9   Id., at pp. 11-12.

10  Id., at p. 12.
11  Id., at pp. 38-43.
12  Id., at p. 42.
13  Id., at pp. 42-43.
14  Id., at p. 43.
15  Id., at pp. 59-62. The Memorandum was penned by Deputy Court
Administrator (OIC) Raul Bautista Villanueva and Deputy Court
Administrator Jenny Lind R. Aldecoa-Delorino.
16  Id., at p. 62.

 
 
616

616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Mendoza vs. Diasen, Jr.
based only on the records since the parties failed to attend
the scheduled hearing on November 28, 2016.17
The Office of the Court Administrator found that despite
the unsubstantiated allegation that Judge Diasen issued a
bouncing check, Judge Diasen had admitted that he would
have profited from the sales of rice had it been delivered.
Judge Diasen also admitted that he “took an active role in
the prospective sale by notifying employees of the Makati
City Hall, and he even had ‘to advise would-be buyers to
come back the following day, which [was] Saturday,’ when
Flores failed to arrive with the rice on the agreed date.”18
The Office of the Court Administrator found that Judge
Diasen’s actions “disclose a deficiency in prudence and
discretion that a member of the Judiciary must exercise in
the performance of his official functions and of his activities
as a private individual.”19 Thus, the Office of the Court
Administrator recommended that:

1. Hon. Marcos C. Diasen, Jr., former Acting Presiding Judge,

Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 62, Makati City, be found
GUILTY of conduct unbecoming a judge; and
2. Respondent Judge Diasen be REPRIMANDED to refrain from
further acts of impropriety with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or any similar act will be dealt with
severely.20

 
This Court adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of
law of the Office of the Court Administrator. The Code of
Judicial Conduct instructs that judges “should avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all
activities.”21

_______________

17  Id., at p. 60.
18  Id., at p. 61.
19  Id.
20  Id., at p. 62.
21  CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, Canon 2.

 
 

617

VOL. 835, AUGUST 9, 2017 617

Mendoza vs. Diasen, Jr.

Judges must at all times conduct themselves in a manner

beyond reproach to ensure the public’s continued
confidence in the judiciary.22
 Under Canon 5, Rule 5.02:

Rule 5.02. – A judge shall refrain from financial and business

dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the court’s impartiality,
interfere with the proper performance of judicial activities or
increase involvement with lawyers or persons likely to come
before the court. A judge should so manage investments and other
financial interests as to minimize the number of cases giving
grounds for disqualification.

 
As this Court explained in Dionisio v. Hon. Escano:23

The restriction enshrined under Rules 5.02 and 5.03 of the

Code of Judicial Ethics on judges with regard to their own
business interests is based on the possible interference which may
be created by these business involvements in the exercise of their
judicial duties which may tend to corrode the respect and dignity
of the courts as the bastion of justice. Judges must not allow
themselves to be distracted from the performance of their judicial
tasks by other lawful enterprises. It has been a time-honored rule
that judges and all court employees should endeavor to maintain
at all times the confidence and high respect accorded to those who
wield the gavel of justice.24

 
Judge Diasen’s act of attempting to sell rice to his
employees and to employees of other branches was highly
improper.

_______________

22   See Dionisio v. Escano, 362 Phil. 46; 302 SCRA 411 (1999) [Per
Curiam, En Banc].
23  Id.
24   Id., at pp. 55-56; pp. 420-421, citing Albos v. Alaba, 301 Phil. 70;
231 SCRA 68 (1994) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc] and Re: Issuance of Subpoena
to Prisoner Nicanor de Guzman, Jr., 343 Phil. 530; 278 SCRA 18 (1997)
[Per J. Kapunan, En Banc].

 
 

618

618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Mendoza vs. Diasen, Jr.

As a judge, he exercised moral ascendancy and supervision

over these employees. If the sale had pushed through, he
would have profited from his position. As the Office of the
Court Administrator observed:
[Judge Diasen] cannot also deny that his position did not
influence the “would-be buyers” to actually partake in the sale of
rice. If employees of the other court branches and offices of the
Makati City Hall could be persuaded to buy the subject rice
because a judge asked them to, what more with the employees of
his own branch[?]25

 
For his improper acts, Judge Diasen is found guilty of
conduct unbecoming a judge.
This Court, however, finds that a modification of the
recommended penalty of reprimand is in order. Under Rule
140 of the Rules of Court, conduct unbecoming a judge is
considered a light charge,26 punishable by the following
sanctions:

C. If the respondent is guilty of a light charge, any of the

following sanctions shall be imposed:
1. A fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not exceeding
P10,000.00; and/or
2. Censure;
3. Reprimand;
4. Admonition with warning.27

 
For violation of Rule 5.02, this Court has imposed a
range of penalties from reprimand,28 a fine of P2,000.00,29
a fine of

_______________

25  Rollo, p. 61.
26  RULES OF COURT, Rule 140, Sec. 10 provides:
Section 10. Light Charges.—Light charges include:
1. Vulgar and unbecoming conduct[.]
27  RULES OF COURT, Rule 140, Sec. 11.
28   See Miranda v. Mangrobang, Sr., 422 Phil. 327; 371 SCRA 20
(2001) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
29   See Berin v. Barte, 434 Phil. 772; 385 SCRA 527 (2002) [Per J.
Mendoza, Second Division].

 
 

619

VOL. 835, AUGUST 9, 2017 619

Mendoza vs. Diasen, Jr.

P5,000.00,30 a fine of P8,000.0031 to a suspension for six (6)

months.32
 This appears to be Judge Diasen’s first offense. He has
also retired from the judiciary as of January 17, 2017;33
thus, a reprimand with warning would not serve its
purpose. This Court hereby finds a fine of P5,000.00 to be
sufficient penalty for his acts.
WHEREFORE, respondent Hon. Marcos C. Diasen, Jr.,
former Acting Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court,
Branch 62, Makati City is found GUILTY of conduct
unbecoming a judge and is hereby FINED the amount of
P5,000.00.
The 1st Indorsement dated July 4, 2017 of Deputy Court
Administrator Thelma C. Bahia and letter dated May 18,
2017 of Hon. Marcos C. Diasen, Jr. are NOTED.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta, Mendoza and Martires,

JJ., concur.

Hon. Marcos C. Diasen, Jr. meted with P5,000.00 fine for

conduct unbecoming a judge.

Notes.—Conduct unbecoming of a judge is classified as

a light offense under Section 10, Rule 140 of the Rules of
Court and penalized under Section 11(C) thereof. (Tormis
vs. Paredes, 749 SCRA 505 [2015])

_______________

30  See Lumibao v. Panal, 311 Phil. 157; 319 SCRA 149 (1999) [Per J.
Buena, Second Division].
31  See Misajon v. Feranil, 483 Phil. 339; 440 SCRA 315 (2004) [Per J.
Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
32  Supra note 22.
33  Rollo, pp. 65-66, Letter dated May 18, 2017.

 
 
620

620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Mendoza vs. Diasen, Jr.

Judges are enjoined to avoid impropriety and the

appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
(Josefina M. Ongcuangco Trading Corporation vs. Pinlac,
755 SCRA 478 [2015])
 
——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.