2025 / Jul
A.M. No. 23-04-15-SC RE: POST IN SOCIAL MEDIA PAGE, "ABOGADONG PINOY," RELATIVE TO AN ALLEGED UNTOWARD BEHAVIOR AND ACTUATIONS OF A CERTAIN MARIKINA "JUDGE" TOWARDS A PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE LAWYER INVOLVING A PARKING INCIDENT July 01, 2025
EN BANC
[ A.M. No. 23-04-15-SC, July 01, 2025 ]
RE: POST IN SOCIAL MEDIA PAGE, "ABOGADONG PINOY," RELATIVE TO AN ALLEGED UNTOWARD BEHAVIOR AND ACTUATIONS OF A CERTAIN MARIKINA "JUDGE" TOWARDS A PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE LAWYER INVOLVING A PARKING INCIDENT
D E C I S I O N
LOPEZ, J., J.:
This Court resolves an administrative Complaint[1]initiated by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against Honorable Rey P. Inciong (Judge Inciong), Presiding Judge of Branch 263, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City.[2]
Antecedents
The instant case finds its origin in an Information received by the OCA regarding a circulating social media post of the alleged misbehavior of a Marikina judge towards a Public Attorney's Office (PAO) lawyer. The judge referred to in the post was later identified to be Judge Inciong. The case was likewise the subject in an anonymous complaint lodged with the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) via e-mail from a certain Karen Nina. Karen Nina claimed that she worked at the Justice Hall of Marikina City and that she witnessed how Judge Inciong verbally lashed at a PAO lawyer in public, causing great tension in the Justice Hall.[3]
On March 13, 2023, the OCA sent an electronic mail[4]to Judge Inciong, directing him to explain his side of the incident within three days from notice.[5]
In a March 14, 2023 Letter[6]addressed to the OCA, Judge Inciong narrated his version of the facts as follows:
In the morning of March 9, 2023, Judge Inciong arrived at the Justice Hall of Marikina and parked at his designated space. While parking, he noticed a gray Mitsubishi Montero blocking the public thoroughfare, as it was positioned in front of the access ramp for persons with disabilities (PWD) and the pathway for judges and other pedestrians passing through the building. Seeing the obstruction as a threat to his security, Judge Inciong instructed a member of his staff to call the attention of the security guard regarding the improperly parked vehicle. Upon inquiry, he was surprised to learn that the vehicle belonged to a certain Atty. Ivanheck U. Gatdula (Atty. Gatdula), a Public Attorney II from PAO. While queuing for the elevator, Judge Inciong saw Atty. Gatdula moving his vehicle around 10 meters away from its prior position and then later joined him in the line. Judge Inciong questioned Atty. Gatdula why he initially parked in front of the PWD access ramp, to which the latter responded, " [a]h, ok lang po yun[,]sandali lang naman po." Upon Judge Inciong's further prodding, Atty. Gatdula clarified that he was merely trying to avoid disciplinary action for being tardy. It was this response that caused Judge Inciong to lose his temper. Judge Inciong also noticed that Atty. Gatdula had his hands inside his pockets. For fear that the latter was carrying a weapon, Judge Inciong emphatically instructed the young lawyer to remove his hands from his pockets. During the ordeal, several security guards approached the two, some of which addressed Judge Inciong as "judge." Recognizing Judge Inciong's position, Atty. Gatdula instantly apologized. Nonetheless, Judge Inciong was insistent to speak to the latter's superiors regarding the incident.[7]
A few moments later, Atty. Rodaflor B. Larracas (Atty. Larracas), the District Public Attorney of PAO Marikina, approached them. Upon being apprised of the situation, Atty. Larracas sought Judge Inciong's understanding and explained that it was their office policy to require PAO lawyers to explain their tardiness. She also added that to avoid being late, she would also park her car in the same manner as Atty. Gatdula. Provoked by Atty. Larracas' response, Judge Inciong inquired whether it was also the policy of PAO to ignore and defy common courtesy just to avoid being tardy. He then turned to Atty. Gatdula and asked him if he was remorseful of his actions. Despite answering in the affirmative, Judge Inciong retorted that he should apologize to all the people in the Justice Hall that he had inconvenienced.[8]
At the end of the workday, Judge Inciong inquired whether Atty. Gatdula complied with his directive to issue a public apology. He was surprised to learn that Atty. Larracas herself instructed Atty. Gatdula to withhold issuing any such apology. Curious as to Atty. Larracas' defiance, Judge Inciong went to the PAO Office to confront Atty. Gatdula and Atty. Larracas. The latter justified that Atty. Gatdula had nothing to apologize for, but Judge Inciong insisted otherwise. Enraged by Atty. Gatdula's stoic demeanor throughout the conversation, Judge Inciong lost his temper and "confronted him as a man" and as a result, "violated [Atty. Gatdula's] personal space."[9]
Cognizant of his misdeeds, Judge Inciong, in his Letter, apologized for his behavior and for bringing disgrace to the court and to his fellow colleagues on the bench. He also asked for forgiveness from both Atty. Larracas and Atty. Gatdula, stressing that he bore no menace or malice towards them. Nevertheless, Judge Inciong justified his actions by raising the incredible burdens he experienced as a trial court judge, due to the heavy caseload and the lack of a full complement of staff.[10]
In his Supplemental Explanation,[11]Judge Inciong insisted that while he may have released imprudent words, none of them were directed at Atty. Gatdula. He also confessed that upon further reflection, his temper may be attributed to his anxiety from the COVID-19 pandemic, which did not cease after the easing of the restrictions.[12]
For their part, Atty. Larracas[13]and Atty. Gatdula[14]submitted their respective incident reports to Judge Romeo Dizon Tagra (Judge Tagra), Executive Judge of the RTC of Marikina City. At the same time, the Security Personnel of the Justice Hall of Marikina, through its officer-in-charge, Daniel L. Marantal, also submitted an incident report.[15]The incident reports were received by the OCA in an endorsement Letter[16]dated March 15, 2023.
In their incident reports, Atty. Larracas and Atty. Gatdula divided their encounter with Judge Inciong:first, their confrontation in the lobby of the Justice Hall of Marikina, andsecond, their confrontation in the PAO office.[17]
Atty. Gatdula confirmed that on March 9, 2023, at around 7:58 a.m., he arrived at the Justice Hall of Marikina and parked his vehicle near the ramp of the lobby to clock in at the PAO biometrics system. In less than a minute, he returned to his vehicle and parked at his designated parking slot. Upon entering the lobby, he noticed Judge Inciong and greeted him, "Good morning po, Judge!" The latter responded, "Anong good morning? Tarantado ka! Bat mo hinarang yung sasakyan mo?" Despite Atty. Gatdula's immediate apology, Judge Inciong began berating him, commenting: "Wala kang modo!;" "Anong niyayabang mo?;" "Sikat ka sa Hall of Justice?" "PAO ka pa lang, arogante ka na!"[18]
Taken aback, Atty. Gatdula reiterated his apology. Notwithstanding his show of remorse, Judge Inciong continued with his tirade, adding: "Gusto mo ipatapon kita sa Tawi-Tawi?;" "Sinong nagpalaki sa'yo?" When Atty. Gatdula replied "[w]ala po[,]" Judge Inciong responded, "[w]ala? Kaya ka pala ugaling squatter." Humiliated, Atty. Gatdula unconsciously placed his hands in his pockets. This again earned the ire of Judge Inciong, causing him to shout, "[g]et your god damn hands out of your pocket!" Judge Inciong then sought to speak to his superiors. At this time, Atty. Larracas, Atty. Gatdula's immediate supervisor, happened to arrive at the lobby.[19]
Atty. Larracas recalled that she arrived at the lobby at around 8:00 a.m. There, she was approached by someone from the Prosecutor's Office, who relayed, "Atty[.] (Larracas),si Atty. Gatdula po yata iyon na inaaway po ng private lawyer." When Atty. Larracas found Atty. Gatdula, she was surprised to find Judge Inciong insulting him in the presence of several court employees and passersby. After learning what had transpired, Atty. Larracas attempted to appease Judge Inciong. She apologized in behalf of Atty. Gatdula, saying "Judge, ako na po ang humihingi ng paumanhin sa inyo[,]" "wag na po kayong magalit[,]" "pasensya na po, it will not happen again." Her efforts were futile, as Judge Inciong remained infuriated and required Atty. Gatdula to post a public apology at the lobby by noontime.[20]
Upon reaching the office, Atty. Larracas informed PAO Regional Director Marlon E. Buan (Regional Director Buan) regarding the incident and asked for guidance on issuing a public apology, who, in turn, advised that no such apology should be issued. Instead, Atty. Larracas proceeded to make further inquiries regarding the incident. She reviewed the closed-circuit television footage, which showed that Atty. Gatdula only took ten seconds to clock in at the biometrics system. To reassure the young lawyer, Atty. Larracas also called Atty. Gatdula in her office to comfort him.[21]
At around 3:45 p.m. of the same day, while conferring with a colleague concerning a particular case, Atty. Gatdula was informed that Judge Inciong was in the PAO Office looking for him. Upon approaching him, Judge Inciong suddenly shouted, "Get your god damn hands out of my [sic] pocket!Hindi ka na natuto! Nasaan ang apology mo? Ano, wala? Wala kang plano?" Atty. Gatdula replied, "Kasi nag-usap pa lang po kami ng DPA ko." Even before Atty. Gatdula had a chance to further explain, Judge Inciong interrupted him, again shouting, "So ano, nakadepende sa DPA mo kung mag-written apology ka? O tara, kausapin natin ang DPA mo!"[22]
Judge Inciong unceremoniously barged into Atty. Larracas' office. When confronted, Atty. Larracas confirmed that after consulting Regional Director Buan, she advised Atty. Gatdula to withhold the issuance of a public apology. She also pleaded with Judge Inciong, "[h]indi pa po ba sapat ang pamamahiya at pagmumura po ninyo kay Atty. Gatdula doon sa baba?" Without responding, Judge Inciong turned to Atty. Gatdula and remarked, "I know you! Do you think I don't know you! 'Yan ba ang itinuro sa'yo ng UST o sa San Beda, kung saan ka man grumaduate?"[23]Despite the lengthy discussion concerning the parking incident, Judge Inciong remained steadfast in demanding a public apology from Atty. Gatdula. To stress the urgency of Atty. Gatdula's compliance, Judge Inciong taunted at the latter in a loud voice, "[u]ulitin mo? Uulitin mo?" In an intrusive and intimidating manner, Judge Inciong suddenly brought his body close to Atty. Gatdula, with their chests and faces almost touching. Judge Inciong repeated his question, to which Atty. Gatdula only answered, "[h]indi po."[24]
The escalating encounter prompted Atty. Ian R. Derez (Atty. Derez) to intervene to pacify Judge Inciong.[25]Atty. Larracas also added "I'm sorry, Judge. Do you think that what you are doing now is good for a judge?Tama po ba ang ginagawa nyo? Pwede nyo naman po syang kausapin pero para harapin nyo sya ng ganyan di naman po tama yang ginawa nyo kasi pwede namang pag-usapan yan."[26]
Such efforts did not deter Judge Inciong from insisting that Atty. Gatdula still publicly apologize.[27]When Atty. Larracas tried to ask Judge Inciong why he singled out Atty. Gatdula, as other people would also block the driveway of the Justice Hall, Judge Inciong turned to Atty. Gatdula and remarked, "Siguro malas ka lang kasi natyempuhan kita." At the same time, he also threatened the lawyers that should he catch anyone parking improperly, he would have the person arrested. Before leaving the office, Judge Inciong again brought his face close to Atty. Gatdula's face and said, "Magbaon ka ng toothbrush, ha? Narinig mo?" as if to insinuate that he would have Atty. Gatdula arrested and detained should he fail to issue a public apology.[28]
Modesto C. Baua, Jr., Joe Marie C. Besagar, and Maricar C. Lucido, of the security personnel of the Justice Hall of Marikina City likewise issued a joint incident report.[29]Pertinent portions of their narration read:
In its August 17, 2023 1stIndorsement,[34]the JIB's Executive Director referred the matter to Judge Inciong for his comment. Judge Inciong was likewise directed to show cause why he should not be sanctioned as a member of the Philippine Bar for violations of Canon II, Sections 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).[35]
In his Verified Comment,[36]Judge Inciong acknowledged his misdeeds anew and pleaded for this Court's forgiveness. He conceded that while he used harsh words and acted out of heated frustration, he could not recall uttering any profanity against Atty. Gatdula and Atty. Larracas. Thus, he maintained that he did not engage in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, as he was merely being honest in his speech.[37]More, upon further reflection, Judge Inciong admitted that he was only seeking some sort of accountability from Atty. Gatdula in blocking the PWD access ramp, which could inconvenience court employees and users.[38]
In praying for the dismissal of the administrative complaint, Judge Inciong implored that this Court exercise compassion, understanding, and patience, considering the embarrassment and shame that his family suffered due to this ordeal. He also invoked his unblemished record and reputation as a public servant, being in government service since 1999. Finally, in recognition of his sworn duty to uphold the dignity of the judiciary, Judge Inciong reassured this Court that he has taken concrete steps to manage his emotions.[39]
On September 15, 2023, the JIB's Executive Director issued a Report and Recommendation,[40]recommending to the JIB that Judge Inciong be found guilty of vulgar and unbecoming conduct, as well as the Use of Vulgar or Offensive Language under Canon VI, Section 35 of the CPRA, viz.:
This Court's Ruling
This Court agrees with the factual findings of the JIB, but exonerates respondent from all charges.
Given the factual landscape of this case, this Court seizes this opportunity to define once again the role of a judge in relation to the administration of justice and in the public's perception of the judiciary. While every public office is a public trust, no position exacts a greater demand on competence and uprightness than a member of the Bench. Time and again, this Court has emphasized that a "judge is viewed as the visible representation of law and justice from whom the people draw their will and inclination to obey the law; the judge must, accordingly, be the first to abide by the law and present an example for others to follow."[46]
On this score, part and parcel of a magistrate's duty is to ceaselessly adhere to the highest tenets of judicial conduct. These general norms of conduct are embodied in the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct.[47]Pertinently, judges are enjoined to be individuals of unquestioned or unblemished integrity and propriety. Canons 2 and 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct reads:
InTormis v. Judge Paredes,[52]the respondent judge, during his class lectures, implicated a fellow member of the Bench in the notorious marriage scams in Cebu City, calling his colleague, "corrupt," and "ignorant of the law." For such utterances, he was found liable for conduct unbecoming of a judge and was imposed the penalty of admonition with warning. This Court clarified that while judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to exercise their freedom of expression, "they should always conduct themselves in a manner that preserves the dignity of the judicial office,"[53]and in doing so, should avoid "unnecessary and uncalled for remarks in [their] discussions."[54]
This Court, inJudge Misajon v. Feranil,[55]found the judge guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge for humiliating the complainant clerk of court before court personnel, litigants and the public, due to her failure to calendar cases, attend hearings, and to keep abreast of the status of cases. While this Court agreed that judges can hold their colleagues and their staff accountable for the efficient performance of their duties, they are admonished to do so without being offensive in speech. Given the high price of their exalted positions, judges were reminded to regulate their emotions, habits, and convictions, and "not to let them loose, either to their own detriment or to that of the courts they serve."[56]
To emphasize that judges must be irreproachable in the discharge of their official duties and in their personal dealings, this Court, inRe: Anonymous Complaint Against Judge Edmundo T. Acuña, RTC, Caloocan City, Branch 123,[57]held that respondent judge was guilty of impropriety for using humiliating and insensitive profanities such as "putris" and "putang ina." While respondent judge explained that his use of such expletives was not directed at any person, this Court found this reasoning unacceptable. As subject of constant public scrutiny, respondent judge was reminded to always "exhibit conduct consistent with the dignity of the judicial office."[58]
In light of these earlier decisions as guideposts, this Court is persuaded that respondent's actuations, while justified, nonetheless must still be reminded. This Court finds that his justifications are enough to assuage him from administrative penalties, but should be warned with admonition to be more aware and careful in his conduct.
As culled from the records, respondent's actuations began in the morning of March 9, 2023, when the latter encountered Atty. Gatdula in the queue for the elevator. After learning that Atty. Gatdula was the owner of the vehicle blocking the access ramp, and that he caused the obstruction to clock in on the biometrics system, respondent began spewing demoralizing remarks at the latter in public, such as "Wala kang modo?;" "Anong niyayabang mo?;" "Sikat ka sa Hall of Justice?;" "PAO ka pa lang, arogante ka na!"[59]Despite Atty. Gatdula's repeated apology and Atty. Larracas' attempts at intervening, respondent was relentless, even demanding that Atty. Gatdula issue a public apology by noon.[60]
In the afternoon, he confronted Atty. Gatdula and Atty. Larracas in the PAO office. Despite all endeavors to appease him, he continued to utter disparaging remarks against them. Worse, during the height of the encounter, he overstepped personal boundaries by bringing his face and chest close enough to touch Atty. Gatdula, to provoke and further intimidate the young lawyer.[61]In his own admission, he violated Atty. Gatdula's personal space, as "he wanted to look at him as a man and be acknowledged in the same way."[62]
While respondent himself admitted to uttering remarks against Atty. Gatdula and Atty. Larracas, this Court does not lose sight of his intention in reprimanding Atty. Gatdula. He merely intended to put an end to the practice of PAO lawyers of parking in front of the entry way to avoid disciplinary action, no matter how brief.[63]Indeed, obstructing the entrance of PWDs and other court-users warrants immediate attention, as it unnecessarily inconveniences the public from availing of the court's services. Still, his demeaning reaction and his sudden outbursts towards the PAO lawyers were clearly disproportionate to their actions, however wrong they may have been. As previously held by this Court, "a judge, even on the face of boorish behavior from those he deals with, ought to conduct himself in a manner befitting a gentleman and a high officer of the court."[64]
While it is conceded that respondent, just like any other normal person, may at times be carried away by his emotions, he must be reminded that he holds an extolled position. As such, he must comport himself in a manner that befits one who dispenses with justice, which requires restraint, civility, and the ability to keep one's cool. To stress, judges are free to exercise their right of free speech and expression, but this must be done within the bounds of decency, most especially with those who work in the service of justice.
Given that respondent was simply enforcing order in the court house, as to avoid any obstruction in the pathway for PWDs and other court users, this Court refrains from meting out the penalty recommended by the JIB. While it must sternly wield discipline on erring employees, this Court also has the discretion to temper the harshness of its judgment with mercy. Given the circumstances, this Court takes into account that this is respondent's first offense, given his unblemished record since he began public service in 1999. As such, this Court deems it fit to admonish respondent to be more circumspect in his speech and his actions while dealing with the public, more so with fellow government employees and members of the bar.
ACCORDINGLY,respondent Judge Rey P. Inciong, Presiding Judge of Branch 263, Regional Trial Court, Marikina City isADMONISHEDto be more circumspect in the performance of his duties as a magistrate of the court. He isWARNEDthat a similar conduct in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Hernando, Inting, Zalameda, Gaerlan, Rosario,andMarquez, JJ.,concur.
Caguioa*andKho, Jr.,**** JJ.,on official leave.
Lazaro-Javier,**J.,on official business.
Dimaampao,***J.,see dissenting opinion.
Singh,*****J., on leave.
Villanueva,******J.,no part.
*On official leave.
**On official business.
***Dissenting.
****On official leave.
*****On leave.
******No part.
[1]Rollo, pp. 1-15. The April 13, 2023 Memorandum addressed to Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo was signed by Court Administrator Raul B. Villanueva (now a Member of this Court) and Assistant Court Administrator Lilian C. Barribal-Co.
[2]Id. at 1.
[3]Id. at 168.
[4]Id. at 95.
[5]Id.
[6]Id. at 16-19.
[7]Id. at 16-17.
[8]Id. at 17.
[9]Id.
[10]Id. at 18-19.
[11]Id. at 48-49.
[12]Id.
[13]Id. at 30-33.
[14]Id. at 25-29.
[15]Id. at 34.
[16]Id. at 20-21.
[17]Id. at 25-29, 30-33.
[18]Id. at 25-26.
[19]Id. at 26.
[20]Id. at 30-31.
[21]Id. at 31.
[22]Id. at 27.
[23]Id.
[24]Id. at 28.
[25]Id.
[26]Id. at 33.
[27]Id. at 28.
[28]Id. at 28-29.
[29]Id. at 35.
[30]Id.
[31]Id. at 1-15.
[32]Id. at 15.
[33]Id. at 53-54.
[34]Id. at 57-58.
[35]Id.
[36]Id. at 63-72.
[37]Id. at 70.
[38]Id. at 68.
[39]Id. at 71.
[40]Id. at 167-175.
[41]Id. at 175.
[42]Id. at 198-210. The September 27, 2023 Report in A.M. No. 23-04-15-SC was penned by Justice Rodolfo A. Ponferrada (ret.) and concurred in by Acting Chairperson Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez (ret.), First Regular Member Justice Sesinando L. Villon (ret.), and Third Regular Member Justice Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla (ret.) of the Judicial Integrity Board.
[43]Id. at 207.
[44]Id.
[45]Id. at 209.
[46]Moroño v. Judge Lomeda, 316 Phil. 103, 115 (1995) [Per Curiam,En Banc]. (Citation omitted)
[47]SC Administrative Order No. 03-05-01-SC (2004), Adopting the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.
[48]Re: Anonymous Complaint Against Judge Edmundo T. Acuña, RTC, Caloocan City, Branch 123, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1891, July 28, 2005 [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division]. (Citation omitted)
[49]Re: Anonymous Complaint against Judge Gedorio, Jr., 551 Phil. 174, 180 (2007) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, First Division].
[50]493 Phil. 255 (2005) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
[51]Id. at 265-266. (Citations omitted)
[52]753 Phil. 41 (2015) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
[53]Id. at 55.
[54]Id.
[55]483 Phil. 339 (2004) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
[56]Id. at 348.
[57]A.M. No. RTJ-04-1891, July 28, 2005 [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
[58]Id. at 258. (Citation omitted)
[59]Rollo, p. 170.
[60]Id.
[61]Id.
[62]Id. at 17.
[63]Id.
[64]Re: Anonymous Complaint against Judge Gedorio, Jr., 551 Phil. 174, 180 (2007) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, First Division]. (Citation omitted)
The instant case finds its origin in an Information received by the OCA regarding a circulating social media post of the alleged misbehavior of a Marikina judge towards a Public Attorney's Office (PAO) lawyer. The judge referred to in the post was later identified to be Judge Inciong. The case was likewise the subject in an anonymous complaint lodged with the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) via e-mail from a certain Karen Nina. Karen Nina claimed that she worked at the Justice Hall of Marikina City and that she witnessed how Judge Inciong verbally lashed at a PAO lawyer in public, causing great tension in the Justice Hall.[3]
On March 13, 2023, the OCA sent an electronic mail[4]to Judge Inciong, directing him to explain his side of the incident within three days from notice.[5]
In a March 14, 2023 Letter[6]addressed to the OCA, Judge Inciong narrated his version of the facts as follows:
In the morning of March 9, 2023, Judge Inciong arrived at the Justice Hall of Marikina and parked at his designated space. While parking, he noticed a gray Mitsubishi Montero blocking the public thoroughfare, as it was positioned in front of the access ramp for persons with disabilities (PWD) and the pathway for judges and other pedestrians passing through the building. Seeing the obstruction as a threat to his security, Judge Inciong instructed a member of his staff to call the attention of the security guard regarding the improperly parked vehicle. Upon inquiry, he was surprised to learn that the vehicle belonged to a certain Atty. Ivanheck U. Gatdula (Atty. Gatdula), a Public Attorney II from PAO. While queuing for the elevator, Judge Inciong saw Atty. Gatdula moving his vehicle around 10 meters away from its prior position and then later joined him in the line. Judge Inciong questioned Atty. Gatdula why he initially parked in front of the PWD access ramp, to which the latter responded, " [a]h, ok lang po yun[,]sandali lang naman po." Upon Judge Inciong's further prodding, Atty. Gatdula clarified that he was merely trying to avoid disciplinary action for being tardy. It was this response that caused Judge Inciong to lose his temper. Judge Inciong also noticed that Atty. Gatdula had his hands inside his pockets. For fear that the latter was carrying a weapon, Judge Inciong emphatically instructed the young lawyer to remove his hands from his pockets. During the ordeal, several security guards approached the two, some of which addressed Judge Inciong as "judge." Recognizing Judge Inciong's position, Atty. Gatdula instantly apologized. Nonetheless, Judge Inciong was insistent to speak to the latter's superiors regarding the incident.[7]
A few moments later, Atty. Rodaflor B. Larracas (Atty. Larracas), the District Public Attorney of PAO Marikina, approached them. Upon being apprised of the situation, Atty. Larracas sought Judge Inciong's understanding and explained that it was their office policy to require PAO lawyers to explain their tardiness. She also added that to avoid being late, she would also park her car in the same manner as Atty. Gatdula. Provoked by Atty. Larracas' response, Judge Inciong inquired whether it was also the policy of PAO to ignore and defy common courtesy just to avoid being tardy. He then turned to Atty. Gatdula and asked him if he was remorseful of his actions. Despite answering in the affirmative, Judge Inciong retorted that he should apologize to all the people in the Justice Hall that he had inconvenienced.[8]
At the end of the workday, Judge Inciong inquired whether Atty. Gatdula complied with his directive to issue a public apology. He was surprised to learn that Atty. Larracas herself instructed Atty. Gatdula to withhold issuing any such apology. Curious as to Atty. Larracas' defiance, Judge Inciong went to the PAO Office to confront Atty. Gatdula and Atty. Larracas. The latter justified that Atty. Gatdula had nothing to apologize for, but Judge Inciong insisted otherwise. Enraged by Atty. Gatdula's stoic demeanor throughout the conversation, Judge Inciong lost his temper and "confronted him as a man" and as a result, "violated [Atty. Gatdula's] personal space."[9]
Cognizant of his misdeeds, Judge Inciong, in his Letter, apologized for his behavior and for bringing disgrace to the court and to his fellow colleagues on the bench. He also asked for forgiveness from both Atty. Larracas and Atty. Gatdula, stressing that he bore no menace or malice towards them. Nevertheless, Judge Inciong justified his actions by raising the incredible burdens he experienced as a trial court judge, due to the heavy caseload and the lack of a full complement of staff.[10]
In his Supplemental Explanation,[11]Judge Inciong insisted that while he may have released imprudent words, none of them were directed at Atty. Gatdula. He also confessed that upon further reflection, his temper may be attributed to his anxiety from the COVID-19 pandemic, which did not cease after the easing of the restrictions.[12]
For their part, Atty. Larracas[13]and Atty. Gatdula[14]submitted their respective incident reports to Judge Romeo Dizon Tagra (Judge Tagra), Executive Judge of the RTC of Marikina City. At the same time, the Security Personnel of the Justice Hall of Marikina, through its officer-in-charge, Daniel L. Marantal, also submitted an incident report.[15]The incident reports were received by the OCA in an endorsement Letter[16]dated March 15, 2023.
In their incident reports, Atty. Larracas and Atty. Gatdula divided their encounter with Judge Inciong:first, their confrontation in the lobby of the Justice Hall of Marikina, andsecond, their confrontation in the PAO office.[17]
Atty. Gatdula confirmed that on March 9, 2023, at around 7:58 a.m., he arrived at the Justice Hall of Marikina and parked his vehicle near the ramp of the lobby to clock in at the PAO biometrics system. In less than a minute, he returned to his vehicle and parked at his designated parking slot. Upon entering the lobby, he noticed Judge Inciong and greeted him, "Good morning po, Judge!" The latter responded, "Anong good morning? Tarantado ka! Bat mo hinarang yung sasakyan mo?" Despite Atty. Gatdula's immediate apology, Judge Inciong began berating him, commenting: "Wala kang modo!;" "Anong niyayabang mo?;" "Sikat ka sa Hall of Justice?" "PAO ka pa lang, arogante ka na!"[18]
Taken aback, Atty. Gatdula reiterated his apology. Notwithstanding his show of remorse, Judge Inciong continued with his tirade, adding: "Gusto mo ipatapon kita sa Tawi-Tawi?;" "Sinong nagpalaki sa'yo?" When Atty. Gatdula replied "[w]ala po[,]" Judge Inciong responded, "[w]ala? Kaya ka pala ugaling squatter." Humiliated, Atty. Gatdula unconsciously placed his hands in his pockets. This again earned the ire of Judge Inciong, causing him to shout, "[g]et your god damn hands out of your pocket!" Judge Inciong then sought to speak to his superiors. At this time, Atty. Larracas, Atty. Gatdula's immediate supervisor, happened to arrive at the lobby.[19]
Atty. Larracas recalled that she arrived at the lobby at around 8:00 a.m. There, she was approached by someone from the Prosecutor's Office, who relayed, "Atty[.] (Larracas),si Atty. Gatdula po yata iyon na inaaway po ng private lawyer." When Atty. Larracas found Atty. Gatdula, she was surprised to find Judge Inciong insulting him in the presence of several court employees and passersby. After learning what had transpired, Atty. Larracas attempted to appease Judge Inciong. She apologized in behalf of Atty. Gatdula, saying "Judge, ako na po ang humihingi ng paumanhin sa inyo[,]" "wag na po kayong magalit[,]" "pasensya na po, it will not happen again." Her efforts were futile, as Judge Inciong remained infuriated and required Atty. Gatdula to post a public apology at the lobby by noontime.[20]
Upon reaching the office, Atty. Larracas informed PAO Regional Director Marlon E. Buan (Regional Director Buan) regarding the incident and asked for guidance on issuing a public apology, who, in turn, advised that no such apology should be issued. Instead, Atty. Larracas proceeded to make further inquiries regarding the incident. She reviewed the closed-circuit television footage, which showed that Atty. Gatdula only took ten seconds to clock in at the biometrics system. To reassure the young lawyer, Atty. Larracas also called Atty. Gatdula in her office to comfort him.[21]
At around 3:45 p.m. of the same day, while conferring with a colleague concerning a particular case, Atty. Gatdula was informed that Judge Inciong was in the PAO Office looking for him. Upon approaching him, Judge Inciong suddenly shouted, "Get your god damn hands out of my [sic] pocket!Hindi ka na natuto! Nasaan ang apology mo? Ano, wala? Wala kang plano?" Atty. Gatdula replied, "Kasi nag-usap pa lang po kami ng DPA ko." Even before Atty. Gatdula had a chance to further explain, Judge Inciong interrupted him, again shouting, "So ano, nakadepende sa DPA mo kung mag-written apology ka? O tara, kausapin natin ang DPA mo!"[22]
Judge Inciong unceremoniously barged into Atty. Larracas' office. When confronted, Atty. Larracas confirmed that after consulting Regional Director Buan, she advised Atty. Gatdula to withhold the issuance of a public apology. She also pleaded with Judge Inciong, "[h]indi pa po ba sapat ang pamamahiya at pagmumura po ninyo kay Atty. Gatdula doon sa baba?" Without responding, Judge Inciong turned to Atty. Gatdula and remarked, "I know you! Do you think I don't know you! 'Yan ba ang itinuro sa'yo ng UST o sa San Beda, kung saan ka man grumaduate?"[23]Despite the lengthy discussion concerning the parking incident, Judge Inciong remained steadfast in demanding a public apology from Atty. Gatdula. To stress the urgency of Atty. Gatdula's compliance, Judge Inciong taunted at the latter in a loud voice, "[u]ulitin mo? Uulitin mo?" In an intrusive and intimidating manner, Judge Inciong suddenly brought his body close to Atty. Gatdula, with their chests and faces almost touching. Judge Inciong repeated his question, to which Atty. Gatdula only answered, "[h]indi po."[24]
The escalating encounter prompted Atty. Ian R. Derez (Atty. Derez) to intervene to pacify Judge Inciong.[25]Atty. Larracas also added "I'm sorry, Judge. Do you think that what you are doing now is good for a judge?Tama po ba ang ginagawa nyo? Pwede nyo naman po syang kausapin pero para harapin nyo sya ng ganyan di naman po tama yang ginawa nyo kasi pwede namang pag-usapan yan."[26]
Such efforts did not deter Judge Inciong from insisting that Atty. Gatdula still publicly apologize.[27]When Atty. Larracas tried to ask Judge Inciong why he singled out Atty. Gatdula, as other people would also block the driveway of the Justice Hall, Judge Inciong turned to Atty. Gatdula and remarked, "Siguro malas ka lang kasi natyempuhan kita." At the same time, he also threatened the lawyers that should he catch anyone parking improperly, he would have the person arrested. Before leaving the office, Judge Inciong again brought his face close to Atty. Gatdula's face and said, "Magbaon ka ng toothbrush, ha? Narinig mo?" as if to insinuate that he would have Atty. Gatdula arrested and detained should he fail to issue a public apology.[28]
Modesto C. Baua, Jr., Joe Marie C. Besagar, and Maricar C. Lucido, of the security personnel of the Justice Hall of Marikina City likewise issued a joint incident report.[29]Pertinent portions of their narration read:
Narinig na lang po namin si Judge Rey Inciong na gusto niyang[h]intayin si Attorney Ivanheck Gatdula ng Public Attorney's Office upang ito'y kausapin[,]ngunit sa kabila ng kanilang pag-uusap[,]narinig na lang po namin si Judge na sumisigaw at pinagsasalitaan na ng masama at masasakit na salita si Atty. Gatdula at[d]umating na rin si Attorney Rodaflor Larracas[, h]ead of Public Attorney's Office[,]ngunit napansin niya na may konting problema sa pagitan ni Judge Inciong at Atty. Gatdula[k]aya namagitan si Atty. Larracas upang pakalmahin ang dalawa ngunit patuloy pa rin sa pagsasalita ng masama si Judge. Kaya humingi na lang ng pasensiya si Atty. Larracas kay Judge Rey P. Inciong.[30](Emphasis supplied)On April 13, 2023, the OCA issued a Memorandum[31]with the following recommendation:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING,the Office of the Court Administrator respectfully recommends for the consideration of the Honorable Court that Hon. Rey P. Inciong, Presiding Judge, Branch 263, Regional Trial Court, Marikina City, beREPRIMANDEDfor his actions on [March 9, 2023] and beSTERNLY WARNEDthat a repetition of the same or any similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.[32](Emphasis in the original)In a June 27, 2023 Resolution,[33]the CourtEn Bancreferred the matter to the JIB for evaluation, report, and recommendation.
In its August 17, 2023 1stIndorsement,[34]the JIB's Executive Director referred the matter to Judge Inciong for his comment. Judge Inciong was likewise directed to show cause why he should not be sanctioned as a member of the Philippine Bar for violations of Canon II, Sections 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).[35]
In his Verified Comment,[36]Judge Inciong acknowledged his misdeeds anew and pleaded for this Court's forgiveness. He conceded that while he used harsh words and acted out of heated frustration, he could not recall uttering any profanity against Atty. Gatdula and Atty. Larracas. Thus, he maintained that he did not engage in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, as he was merely being honest in his speech.[37]More, upon further reflection, Judge Inciong admitted that he was only seeking some sort of accountability from Atty. Gatdula in blocking the PWD access ramp, which could inconvenience court employees and users.[38]
In praying for the dismissal of the administrative complaint, Judge Inciong implored that this Court exercise compassion, understanding, and patience, considering the embarrassment and shame that his family suffered due to this ordeal. He also invoked his unblemished record and reputation as a public servant, being in government service since 1999. Finally, in recognition of his sworn duty to uphold the dignity of the judiciary, Judge Inciong reassured this Court that he has taken concrete steps to manage his emotions.[39]
On September 15, 2023, the JIB's Executive Director issued a Report and Recommendation,[40]recommending to the JIB that Judge Inciong be found guilty of vulgar and unbecoming conduct, as well as the Use of Vulgar or Offensive Language under Canon VI, Section 35 of the CPRA, viz.:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING,it is respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Board that the instant matter beRE-DOCKETEDand the following recommendations be made to the Supreme Court:In its September 27, 2023 Report,[42]the JIB adopted the factual findings of the above-mentioned Report. Nevertheless, it modified the penalties imposed. Given the significant lapse of time between the two incidents, the JIB opined that the two encounters between Judge Inciong, Atty. Gatdula, and Atty. Larracas should be considered as two separate acts, for which Judge Inciong should be held accountable.[43]In determining the penalty, the JIB appreciated the mitigating circumstance of first offense, but considered the lapse of time as an aggravating circumstance, as it indicated "more deliberateness or greater degree of unkindness or impropriety that borders on perversity."[44]Thus, the JIB recommended to the CourtEn Banc:
WHEREFORE, it is respectfullyRECOMMENDEDto the Honorable Supreme Court that:The issue before this Court is whether respondent Judge Rey P. Inciong should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of.
- The instant case against Respondent Judge Rey P. Inciong Branch 263, Regional Trial Court, Marikina City, beRE-DOCKETEDas a regular administrative matter;
- Respondent Judge Inciong be foundGUILTYof two (2) counts of vulgar and unbecoming conduct andFINEDin the amount of [PHP] 5,000.00 for each count or a total of [PHP] 10,000.00;
- Respondent Judge Inciong, as a member of the Philippine bar, be foundGUILTYof two (2) counts of use of vulgar or offensive language and similar or analogous infractions in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability andFINEDin the amount of [PHP] 5,000.00 for each count or a total of [PHP] 10,000.00;
- Both fines in the total amount of [PHP] 20,000.00 be paid within three (3) months from the time the decision or resolution is promulgated;
- Respondent Judge Inciong beSTERNLY WARNEDthat a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely by the Court.[45](Emphasis in the original)
This Court agrees with the factual findings of the JIB, but exonerates respondent from all charges.
Given the factual landscape of this case, this Court seizes this opportunity to define once again the role of a judge in relation to the administration of justice and in the public's perception of the judiciary. While every public office is a public trust, no position exacts a greater demand on competence and uprightness than a member of the Bench. Time and again, this Court has emphasized that a "judge is viewed as the visible representation of law and justice from whom the people draw their will and inclination to obey the law; the judge must, accordingly, be the first to abide by the law and present an example for others to follow."[46]
On this score, part and parcel of a magistrate's duty is to ceaselessly adhere to the highest tenets of judicial conduct. These general norms of conduct are embodied in the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct.[47]Pertinently, judges are enjoined to be individuals of unquestioned or unblemished integrity and propriety. Canons 2 and 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct reads:
Thus, it should come as a matter of course that judges are to be "temperate, patient[,] and courteous both in conduct and in language. Indeed, a judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."[48]As dispensers of justice, judges must "exercise judicial temperament at all times, avoiding vulgar and insulting language. He must maintain composure and equanimity."[49]InSpouses Jacinto v. Judge Vallarta,[50]this Court warned that judges who are remiss in this duty and resort to intemperate language contribute to the degradation of the judicial office, and, ultimately, the erosion of the public's confidence in the judiciary:CANON 2
Integrity
Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the personal demeanor of judges.
SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.
SECTION 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.CANON 4
Propriety
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge.
SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
SECTION 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.
From the standpoint of conduct and demeanor expected of members of the bench, a resort to intemperate language only detracts from the respect due them and becomes self-destructive. The judicial office circumscribes the personal conduct of a magistrate and imposes a number of restrictions. This is a price that judges have to pay for accepting and occupying their exalted positions in the administration of justice. Irresponsible or improper conduct on their part erodes public confidence in the judiciary. Thus, it is their duty to avoid any impression of impropriety in order to protect the image and integrity of the judiciary. "Maintaining the dignity of courts and enforcing the duty of the citizens to respect them are necessary adjuncts to the administration of justice."On several occasions, this Court did not hesitate to exercise its supervisory power to admonish judges who failed to exercise proper care and restraint in both their conduct and speech.
Respondent must be reminded that government service is people-oriented. "Patience is an essential part of dispensing justice and courtesy is a mark of culture and good breeding." Impatience and rudeness have no place in government service, in which personnel are enjoined to act with self-restraint and civility at all times.[51](Citations omitted)
InTormis v. Judge Paredes,[52]the respondent judge, during his class lectures, implicated a fellow member of the Bench in the notorious marriage scams in Cebu City, calling his colleague, "corrupt," and "ignorant of the law." For such utterances, he was found liable for conduct unbecoming of a judge and was imposed the penalty of admonition with warning. This Court clarified that while judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to exercise their freedom of expression, "they should always conduct themselves in a manner that preserves the dignity of the judicial office,"[53]and in doing so, should avoid "unnecessary and uncalled for remarks in [their] discussions."[54]
This Court, inJudge Misajon v. Feranil,[55]found the judge guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge for humiliating the complainant clerk of court before court personnel, litigants and the public, due to her failure to calendar cases, attend hearings, and to keep abreast of the status of cases. While this Court agreed that judges can hold their colleagues and their staff accountable for the efficient performance of their duties, they are admonished to do so without being offensive in speech. Given the high price of their exalted positions, judges were reminded to regulate their emotions, habits, and convictions, and "not to let them loose, either to their own detriment or to that of the courts they serve."[56]
To emphasize that judges must be irreproachable in the discharge of their official duties and in their personal dealings, this Court, inRe: Anonymous Complaint Against Judge Edmundo T. Acuña, RTC, Caloocan City, Branch 123,[57]held that respondent judge was guilty of impropriety for using humiliating and insensitive profanities such as "putris" and "putang ina." While respondent judge explained that his use of such expletives was not directed at any person, this Court found this reasoning unacceptable. As subject of constant public scrutiny, respondent judge was reminded to always "exhibit conduct consistent with the dignity of the judicial office."[58]
In light of these earlier decisions as guideposts, this Court is persuaded that respondent's actuations, while justified, nonetheless must still be reminded. This Court finds that his justifications are enough to assuage him from administrative penalties, but should be warned with admonition to be more aware and careful in his conduct.
As culled from the records, respondent's actuations began in the morning of March 9, 2023, when the latter encountered Atty. Gatdula in the queue for the elevator. After learning that Atty. Gatdula was the owner of the vehicle blocking the access ramp, and that he caused the obstruction to clock in on the biometrics system, respondent began spewing demoralizing remarks at the latter in public, such as "Wala kang modo?;" "Anong niyayabang mo?;" "Sikat ka sa Hall of Justice?;" "PAO ka pa lang, arogante ka na!"[59]Despite Atty. Gatdula's repeated apology and Atty. Larracas' attempts at intervening, respondent was relentless, even demanding that Atty. Gatdula issue a public apology by noon.[60]
In the afternoon, he confronted Atty. Gatdula and Atty. Larracas in the PAO office. Despite all endeavors to appease him, he continued to utter disparaging remarks against them. Worse, during the height of the encounter, he overstepped personal boundaries by bringing his face and chest close enough to touch Atty. Gatdula, to provoke and further intimidate the young lawyer.[61]In his own admission, he violated Atty. Gatdula's personal space, as "he wanted to look at him as a man and be acknowledged in the same way."[62]
While respondent himself admitted to uttering remarks against Atty. Gatdula and Atty. Larracas, this Court does not lose sight of his intention in reprimanding Atty. Gatdula. He merely intended to put an end to the practice of PAO lawyers of parking in front of the entry way to avoid disciplinary action, no matter how brief.[63]Indeed, obstructing the entrance of PWDs and other court-users warrants immediate attention, as it unnecessarily inconveniences the public from availing of the court's services. Still, his demeaning reaction and his sudden outbursts towards the PAO lawyers were clearly disproportionate to their actions, however wrong they may have been. As previously held by this Court, "a judge, even on the face of boorish behavior from those he deals with, ought to conduct himself in a manner befitting a gentleman and a high officer of the court."[64]
While it is conceded that respondent, just like any other normal person, may at times be carried away by his emotions, he must be reminded that he holds an extolled position. As such, he must comport himself in a manner that befits one who dispenses with justice, which requires restraint, civility, and the ability to keep one's cool. To stress, judges are free to exercise their right of free speech and expression, but this must be done within the bounds of decency, most especially with those who work in the service of justice.
Given that respondent was simply enforcing order in the court house, as to avoid any obstruction in the pathway for PWDs and other court users, this Court refrains from meting out the penalty recommended by the JIB. While it must sternly wield discipline on erring employees, this Court also has the discretion to temper the harshness of its judgment with mercy. Given the circumstances, this Court takes into account that this is respondent's first offense, given his unblemished record since he began public service in 1999. As such, this Court deems it fit to admonish respondent to be more circumspect in his speech and his actions while dealing with the public, more so with fellow government employees and members of the bar.
ACCORDINGLY,respondent Judge Rey P. Inciong, Presiding Judge of Branch 263, Regional Trial Court, Marikina City isADMONISHEDto be more circumspect in the performance of his duties as a magistrate of the court. He isWARNEDthat a similar conduct in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Hernando, Inting, Zalameda, Gaerlan, Rosario,andMarquez, JJ.,concur.
Caguioa*andKho, Jr.,**** JJ.,on official leave.
Lazaro-Javier,**J.,on official business.
Dimaampao,***J.,see dissenting opinion.
Singh,*****J., on leave.
Villanueva,******J.,no part.
*On official leave.
**On official business.
***Dissenting.
****On official leave.
*****On leave.
******No part.
[1]Rollo, pp. 1-15. The April 13, 2023 Memorandum addressed to Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo was signed by Court Administrator Raul B. Villanueva (now a Member of this Court) and Assistant Court Administrator Lilian C. Barribal-Co.
[2]Id. at 1.
[3]Id. at 168.
[4]Id. at 95.
[5]Id.
[6]Id. at 16-19.
[7]Id. at 16-17.
[8]Id. at 17.
[9]Id.
[10]Id. at 18-19.
[11]Id. at 48-49.
[12]Id.
[13]Id. at 30-33.
[14]Id. at 25-29.
[15]Id. at 34.
[16]Id. at 20-21.
[17]Id. at 25-29, 30-33.
[18]Id. at 25-26.
[19]Id. at 26.
[20]Id. at 30-31.
[21]Id. at 31.
[22]Id. at 27.
[23]Id.
[24]Id. at 28.
[25]Id.
[26]Id. at 33.
[27]Id. at 28.
[28]Id. at 28-29.
[29]Id. at 35.
[30]Id.
[31]Id. at 1-15.
[32]Id. at 15.
[33]Id. at 53-54.
[34]Id. at 57-58.
[35]Id.
[36]Id. at 63-72.
[37]Id. at 70.
[38]Id. at 68.
[39]Id. at 71.
[40]Id. at 167-175.
[41]Id. at 175.
[42]Id. at 198-210. The September 27, 2023 Report in A.M. No. 23-04-15-SC was penned by Justice Rodolfo A. Ponferrada (ret.) and concurred in by Acting Chairperson Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez (ret.), First Regular Member Justice Sesinando L. Villon (ret.), and Third Regular Member Justice Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla (ret.) of the Judicial Integrity Board.
[43]Id. at 207.
[44]Id.
[45]Id. at 209.
[46]Moroño v. Judge Lomeda, 316 Phil. 103, 115 (1995) [Per Curiam,En Banc]. (Citation omitted)
[47]SC Administrative Order No. 03-05-01-SC (2004), Adopting the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.
[48]Re: Anonymous Complaint Against Judge Edmundo T. Acuña, RTC, Caloocan City, Branch 123, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1891, July 28, 2005 [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division]. (Citation omitted)
[49]Re: Anonymous Complaint against Judge Gedorio, Jr., 551 Phil. 174, 180 (2007) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, First Division].
[50]493 Phil. 255 (2005) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
[51]Id. at 265-266. (Citations omitted)
[52]753 Phil. 41 (2015) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
[53]Id. at 55.
[54]Id.
[55]483 Phil. 339 (2004) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
[56]Id. at 348.
[57]A.M. No. RTJ-04-1891, July 28, 2005 [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
[58]Id. at 258. (Citation omitted)
[59]Rollo, p. 170.
[60]Id.
[61]Id.
[62]Id. at 17.
[63]Id.
[64]Re: Anonymous Complaint against Judge Gedorio, Jr., 551 Phil. 174, 180 (2007) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, First Division]. (Citation omitted)
DIMAAMPAO,J.:
This is an administrative case initiated by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against Judge Rey P. Inciong (Judge Inciong), Presiding Judge of Branch 263, Regional Trial Court, Marikina City.[1]The case has its provenance in an information received by the OCA anent a viral social media post depicting the alleged misbehavior of a "Marikina Judge," who was later identified to be Judge Inciong.[2]This incident was likewise the subject matter of an anonymous complaint[3]filed before the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) by a certain Karen Nina, who claimed to be working at the Justice Hall of Marikina City. Karen Nina's complaint was treated as an anonymous complaint and referred to the Office of the General Counsel of the JIB, which, in turn, indorsed the same to the Office of the Executive Director of the JIB for consolidation with the instant case.[4]
Theponenciatotally exonerates Judge Rey P. Inciong (Judge Inciong) from liability on the sole reason that he "was simply enforcing order in the courthouse."
I strongly disagree.
Judge Inciong must be held guilty of prejudicial conduct that gravely besmirches or taints the reputation of the service. |
The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary[5]sets in stone the general norms of conduct among the members of the Judiciary. Embodied under Canon 2, Sections 1 and 2 and Canon 4, Sections 1, 2, and 8 are the following inviolable edicts for observance by all judges, viz.:
Being the visible representation of the law and the embodiment of the people's sense of justice, a judge should constantly keep himself away from any act of impropriety, not only in the performance of his official duties but also in his everyday actuations.[6]In sooth, judges must possess the virtue ofgravitas, be learned in the law, dignified in demeanor, refined in speech and virtuous in character. He must exhibit that hallmark of judicial temperament of utmost sobriety and self-restraint.[7]Canon 2. Integrity
Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the personal demeanor of judges.
SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.
SEC. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.Canon 4. Propriety
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge.
SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
SEC. 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.
SEC. 8. Judges shall not use or lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance their private interests...
In absolving Judge Inciong from any liability, theponenciazeroes in on his supposedly good intention in reprimanding Atty. Gatdula as the practice of PAO lawyers of parking in front of the access ramp for Persons with Disability. However, in doing so, theponenciautterly brushes aside the existence of overwhelming evidence that establish Judge Inciong's failure to live up to the exacting standards adumbrated above.
Prefatorily, theponenciafails to characterize whether Judge Inciong's acts were committed in the discharge of his official duties or in his personal capacity. This is an important threshold issue that sets the proper lens from which the Court should view Judge Inciong's purported violations.
To my mind, Judge Inciong's acts towards Atty. Gatdula during the twin incidents at the lobby of the Marikina Justice Hall and inside the PAO were committed in his personal capacity. Verily, he was not acting in the discharge of his official duties when he confronted and publicly ridiculed Atty. Gatdula as the same barely form part of his authority as a judge. Even hisintentionto call out Atty. Gatdula for his alleged improper parking barely cuts the ice as this, again, is not part of hisofficialduties as a judge. Along this grain, Judge Inciong's own averments demystify the true nature of his dealings with Atty. Gatdula —
Rodil v. Posadas[9]enunciates that administrative offenses involving acts of misconduct that do not relate or are not connected with the official functions and duties of the respondent-public officer are designated as Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service.[10]In the recent case ofJudge Jayme v. Roco,[11]the Court explicated that following the refinement of the Rules of Court, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service now falls under the serious charge ofGrave Abuse of Authority and/or Prejudicial Conduct that Gravely Besmirches or Taints the Reputation of the Service,provided in Section 14(1) of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC.[12]. . . .
- To reiterate, the undersigned did not introduce himself as a Judge or in anyway or manner invoke his authority as a Judge when speaking to Atty. Gatdula and Atty. Larracas. No order or imperative was issued to them under any authority as a Judge.
- ... I said, Your Honor, that I asked for an apology from Atty. Gatdula. But, reflection reveals to me that what I was seeking was perhaps some sort of accountability on his part for his brazen behavior by parking and blocking the PWD access ramp of the Justice Hall.When I told Atty. Gatdula that he should apologize to the people he inconvenienced, I said so as a man who speaks to another man,having no other expectation than to receive an answer as a man expects another to answer.It was not a command or an order, Your Honor.[8](Emphasis supplied)
Upon this point, it behooves the Court to clarify the conditions before a member or personnel of the Judiciary may be held liable for Gravely Prejudicial Conduct under Section 14(1). In shedding light on this novel offense,Judge Jaymeappositely referred to the annotations on A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, viz.:
...To further understand this new designation, the Court's annotations thereto is (sic) instructive, to wit:Judge Jaymefurther instructs that to constitute a violation under Section 14(1), the act complained of must: 1) be without a direct relation or connection with the performance of the respondent-public officer's official duties; and 2) not be covered by any other specific offense already listed in the Rules.[14]NOTES:This charge is added to cover acts or omissions which are not strictly part of the performance of one's official functions, but nonetheless are punished as they diminish or tend to diminish the people's faith in the Judiciary.
This coversoppression, as well asconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the serviceunder the 2017 RACCS. "Oppression is also known as grave abuse of authority, which is a misdemeanor committed by a public officer, who under color of his office, wrongfully inflict[s] upon any person any bodily harm, imprisonment or other injury. It is an act of cruelty, severity, or excessive use of authority." (SeeOmbudsman v. Caberoy, G.R. No. 188066, October 22, 2014)
On the other hand,conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the servicerefers to acts that "tarnish the image and integrity of [a] public office" without a "direct relation to or connection with the performance of [one's] official duties." (Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas v. Castro, 759 Phil. 68 [2015])It must be noted, however, that based on existing jurisprudence, "conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service" tends to become some sort of a blanket offense to cover all other misdeeds not falling under any specific offense already listed in the Rule. To remedy this situation, the offense is reformulated to "prejudicial conduct that gravely besmirches or taints the reputation of the service."[13](Emphasis in the original)
To fully breathe life into the spirit behind the reformulation of the offense, two elements are proposed to be added to the requisites espoused inJudge Jayme, i.e.,one, that the act complained of must be prejudicial; andtwo, it gravely besmirches or taints the reputation of the service. This will provide a clearer delineation between Sections 14(1) and 16(a) of the current Rule 140, which both deal with unbecoming conduct of court personnel. The addition of the last requisite will essentially "remedy [the] situation" where the offense, as previously designated, becomes the blanket offense to cover all misdeeds not otherwise falling under any other provisions under the Rules. Accordingly, if the prejudicial conduct (1) has no direct relation or connection with the performance of the respondent-public officer's official duties; (2) is not covered by any other specific offense in the Rules; and (3) does not gravely besmirch or taint the reputation of the service, the same is not contemplated under Section 14(1), Rule 140. At best, it may only be considered as "vulgar or unbecoming conduct," a light charge under Section 16(a) of the current Rule 140.
To recapitulate, I respectfully submit that the elements of Gravely Prejudicial Conduct as a serious offense under Section 14(1) of Rule 140, as amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC include the following:1) the respondent-public officer commits a prejudicial act; 2) the act has no direct relation or connection with the performance of the respondent-public officer's official duties; 3) the act is not covered by any other specific offense listed in the Rules; and 4) the prejudicial conduct gravely besmirches or taints the reputation of the service.
Taking cue from the foregoing disquisitions, the substantial evidence at hand unmistakably prove Judge Inciong's liability under Section 14(1) of Rule 140, as amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC.
One. It is undisputed, in light of Judge Inciong's own admissions, that he indeed uttered 'imprudent,' 'harsh,' and 'profane' words and even 'violated [Atty. Gatdula's] personal space.'[15]Judge Inciong's obnoxious remarks were described in greater detail and sans euphemism by Atty. Gatdula, as he so vividly recalled being on the receiving end of the former's wrath, uttered in the following expressions:
- "Anonggood morning?Tarantado ka! ... "
- "Wala kang modo!"
- "Anong niyayabang mo?";"Sikat ka sa Hall of Justice?";"PAO ka pa lang, arogante ka na!"
- "Gusto mong ipatapon kita sa Tawi-Tawi?"
- "Sinong nagpalaki sa'yo?";"Wala? Kaya ka pala ugalingsquatter."
- "Get your god[]damn hands out of your pocket!"
- "Get your god[]damn hands out of my (sic) pocket!Hindi ka na natuto! Nasaan angapologymo? Ano, wala? Wala kang plano?"
- "I know you! Do you think I don't know you?'Yan ba ang itinuro sa'yo sa UST o sa San Beda, kung saan ka man grumaduate?"[16]
A conduct is considered "prejudicial" if it is "detrimental or derogatory to a party; naturally, probably or actually bringing about a wrong result."[17]The viciousness in Judge Inciong's behavior evidently derogates from his duty toalwaysact with propriety. It is prejudicialfirst, to Atty. Gatdula, andsecond, to the Court.
A deep dive analysis into the statements of Judge Inciong towards Atty. Gatdula would disclose that they are hardly superficial as they unreasonably and unnecessarily impinge Atty. Gatdula'svalues, upbringing, educational background, and training. So, too, Judge Inciong's distasteful remarks reek of a baseless sense of entitlement as he belittled public attorneys, as well as impressed upon Atty. Gatdula that he had the power to cast him to Tawi-Tawi. Judge Inciong's act of summoning Atty. Gatdula's superior, Atty. Larracas, as if he had the power to do so in the first place, likewise shows his conceit and egotism. All the more that his temerity to even storm to the PAO, an agency of a co-equal branch, is a badge of his pomposity and arrogance.
As succinctly put by the Atty. Navarrete, "... the rude behavior [Judge Inciong] displayed towards Atty. Gatdula is not befitting a judge. While it may be argued [that] Atty. Gatdula was at fault for blocking the access ramp for the PWD, the manner by which [Judge Inciong] addressed the situation was uncalled for."[18]Judge Inciong cannot thus hide behind the mantle of his supposed bona fide intention to seek accountability over the parking incident, as his resolve to inflict humiliation and embarrassment upon Atty. Gatdula and Atty. Larracas became manifest when he pursued his demand of public apology even after a considerable lapse of time.Naturally, Judge Inciong would have recovered his moral equanimity during the interstice, but he did not. On the contrary, it was during the incident at the PAO where Judge Inciong put the nail in his coffin by flaunting an even more aggressive and hostile behavior and going as far as getting physically in contact with Atty. Gatdula.
In point of fact, the video recording attached to Karen Nina's anonymous complaint perfectly depicted Judge Inciong's despicable behavior during the PAO Office incident. Besides, it bears stressing that Judge Inciong openly exhibited his misdeeds in two public spaces, i.e., the lobby of Marikina Justice Hall and the PAO. Inevitably, Judge Inciong's invocation of his right to privacy is out on a limb. He cannot, in the first place, have a reasonable expectation of privacy when his scurrilous conduct was displayed for all the court users, as well as the people present in the PAO, to see.
Judge Inciong wantonly disregarded his duty to uphold the integrity of the Court and observe propriety in his dealings. Thus, there can be no quibbling that his conduct is also prejudicial to the Judiciary.
In a forlorn attempt to justify his misdeeds, Judge Inciong resorted to the human frailty defense, averring that in 'the most unexpected way and in impromptu situations[,] a sliver of base humanity may seep through the stoic robes of Judicial office and [catch] him unaware[].'[19]However, as early as the case ofP/S Insp. Fidel v. Judge Caraos,[20]this Court has invariably pronounced that although judges may attribute their intemperate language to human frailty, their noble position in the bench nevertheless demands from them courteous speechin and out of the court. Judges are demanded to be always temperate, patient and courteous both in conduct and in language.[21]
Two. As earlier stated, Judge Inciong was acting in his personal capacity when he called out Atty. Gatdula and committed the subject misdemeanor. His acts of calling out an individual over a parking incident and reprimanding him have no direct relation or connection with the performance of his official duties as a judge. Suffice it to say that things would have been different had Judge Inciong been the Executive Judge of the Marikina RTC because if such had been the case, he would have the authority to outrightly call for accountability over Atty. Gatdula's act. Consequently, the second element is likewise present.
Three. Judge Inciong's conduct is not covered by any otherspecificoffense listed under the Further Amendments to Rule 140. The JIB recommended that Judge Inciong be held liable for two counts of vulgar and unbecoming conduct under Section 16(a) of the same Rule.
I could not agree less.
The above discussion on the reformulation of the offense of "conduct unbecoming" now clearly delineates Section 14(1) from 16(a), which respectively provide:
SECTION 14.Serious Charges. — Serious charges include:The two offenses are clearly demarcated by the requisite ofspecificity— under Section 14(1), the prejudicial conduct mustgravely besmirch or taint the reputation of the judiciary, whereas Section 16(a)generallycovers all other vulgar and unbecoming conduct of court personnel. Needless to state, the third element is satisfied as no other specific offense deals with Judge Inciong's misdemeanor, which is characterized by the presence of the fourth qualifying element.
....
(1) Grave abuse of authority, and/or prejudicial conduct that gravely besmirches or taints the reputation of the service;
SECTION 16. Light Charges. – Light charges include:(a) Vulgar and unbecoming conduct;
Four.The gravity, manner, and circumstances by which Judge Inciong delivered his statements,along with the public perception of his gravely prejudicial conduct, all fortify the presence of the final and central element of grave damage to the reputation of the service.
In the various pleadings filed by Judge Inciong, he invariably admitted his misdeeds and acknowledged the shame he has brought the Court and the image of judges, viz.—
And, to cause shame and embarrassment to the Court, he did.
- Your Honor, hindsight as 20/20 visions and advances in modern technology gives us total recall and a memory that has yet, no end. Your Honor, this incident has given the undersigned the opportunity for quiet reflection.I am pained and hurt by how I have brought shame to the Supreme Court and the image of Judges in the mind of the public whom we serve.The critical eyes of the public are unblinking in this digital age. The need for steadfast vigilance in guarding thoughts, words and actions is needed now more than ever. I waivered, and I am sorry[.][22](Emphasis supplied)
Several telling circumstances likewise point to the ineffable conclusion that Judge Inciong's prejudicial conduct went beyond the confines of a 'private conversation,' as he intransigently insists, and actually gravely tainted the judiciary's image.
To recall, Atty. Larracas narrated that upon arriving at the Marikina Justice Hall that fateful morning, he was approached by a staff of the Prosecutor's Office, who told her, "Atty[.,] si Atty. Gatdula po yata iyon na inaaway po ngprivate lawyer." Atty. Larracas then discovered that it was Judge Inciong who was confronting Atty. Gatdula. She further recounted that Judge Inciong hurled insults at Atty. Gatdula in the presence of "so many employees who were passing by."[23]This was bolstered by Baua, Lucido, and Besagar, who jointly executed their statement as eyewitnesses to the lobby incident.[24]Unsatiated, Judge Inciong further showed off his raging discontent and arrogance at the PAO, this time with the public attorneys, staff, and all other persons present therein as his audience. Exasperated by Judge Inciong's behavior, Atty. Larracas even had to ask him, "I'm sorry, Judge. Do you think that what you are doing now is good for a Judge?Tama po ba ang ginagawa n[i]yo;" "Pwede n[i]yo naman po s[i]yang kausapin, pero para harapin n[i]yo s[i]ya ng (sic) ganyan[,] [']di naman po tama [']yang ginawa n[i]yo kasi pwede namang pag[-]usapan [']yan."[25]
A video recording of the PAO incident was later posted on the social media page "Abogadong Pinoy". Judge Inciong himself avers that even after the viral post was deleted, the video, together with his and his wife's photos, has since been uploaded and shared through various social media posts and group chats and subjected to public ridicule. The proliferation of the video professedly caused severe embarrassment, humiliation, and chagrin on his part, as well as his family.[26]While it may be decorous to commiserate with Judge Inciong insofar as matters of private interest are concerned, such as his wife and the rest of his family, had to be dragged into this controversy, suffice it to say that Judge Inciong only has himself to blame.
Ultimately, the outrageous reactions and feedback of people on social networking sites only depict the perilous effect on the reputation of the Court and the judges brought about by Judge Inciong's actions.
In a nutshell, it cannot be gainsaid that Judge Inciong's prejudicial conduct gravely besmirched and tainted the reputation of the judiciary.
Judge Inciong violated Sections 2, 4, and 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. |
Section 4, Paragraph 1 of Rule 140, as amended, provides that:
SECTION 4.Administrative Case Considered as Disciplinary Action Against Members of the Philippine Bar. – An administrative case against any of those mentioned in Section 1 (1) of this Rule shall also be considered as a disciplinary action against him or her as a member of the Philippine Bar, provided, that the complaint specifically states that the imputed acts or omissions therein likewise constitute a violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Canons of Professional Ethics, or such other forms of breaches of conduct that have been traditionally recognized as grounds for the discipline of lawyers.By virtue of the foregoing rule, the JIB directed Judge Inciong to show cause why he should not be sanctioned as a member of the Philippine Bar for violations of Canon II, Sections 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 of the CPRA.
For his part, Judge Inciong denied having engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. In the same vein, he averred that despite being harsh, he neither hurled any abusive, intemperate, or offensive language towards Atty. Gatdula and Atty. Larracas nor committed any physical, sexual, or psychological abuse towards them. Finally, Judge Inciong avowed that he did not threaten or employ violence upon Atty. Gatdula and Atty. Larracas.[27]
On this score, Sections 2, 4, and 6, Canon II of the CPRA are apropos:
SECTION 2.Dignified conduct.– A lawyer shall respect the law, the courts, tribunals, and other government agencies, their officials, employees, and processes, and act with courtesy, civility, fairness, and candor towards fellow members of the bar.These rules of conduct must be examined vis-à-vis Judge Inciong's acts in one fell swoop.
A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on one's fitness to practice law, nor behave in a scandalous manner, whether in public or private life, to the discredit of the legal profession.
SECTION 4.Use of dignified, gender-fair, and child- and culturally-sensitive Language.– A lawyer shall use only dignified, gender- fair, child- and culturally-sensitive language in all personal and professional dealings.
To this end, a lawyer shall not use language which is abusive, intemperate, offensive or otherwise improper, oral or written, and whether made through traditional or electronic means, including all forms or types of mass or social media.
SECTION 6.Harassing or threatening conduct.– A lawyer shall not harass or threaten a fellow lawyer, the latter's client or principal, a witness, or any official or employee of a court, tribunal, or other government agency.
The JIB finds Judge Inciong liable for two counts of use of vulgar or offensive language under Section 35(b) of the CPRA and recommends that he be fined in the amount of PHP 5,000.00 for each count.
I humbly agree with the JIB, albeit with modification insofar as Judge Inciong must also held liable for Simple Misconduct under Section 34(a) of the CPRA.
The pertinent findings of Atty. Navarrete encapsulate Judge Inciong's misdemeanor towards Atty. Gatdula, his fellow lawyer, viz.:
Respondent Judge Inciong claimed the heated conversation was just a "private conversation" between him and Atty. Gatdula but the fact that he shouted at the top of his voice and hurled acerbic words at Atty. Gatdula, in full view of employees from [sic] the courts and the PAO, belied such claim. Respondent Judge Inciong claimed [that] he can no longer recall the harsh words he hurled but from the standpoint of Atty. Gatdula[,] it was as if the incident took place only the other day. Atty. Gatdula vividly recalled the insulting words he received from respondent Judge and this was seconded by Atty. Larracas. Respondent Judge Inciong even went as far as ordering Atty. Gatdula to post a public apology at the lobby of the Justice Hall by lunch time, a clear abuse of his position. This was the reason he went to the PAO [] in the afternoon, to confirm if the apology had been posted. When he realized that Atty. Gatdula did not post one, respondent Judge scolded him again. As evidenced by the video posted on the social media [page]"Abogadong Pinoy,"[] respondent Judge Inciong was more aggressive when he confronted Atty. Gatdula in the afternoon.To ingeminate, Judge Inciong's deprecating remarks against Atty. Gatdula included curses, a threat to cast him out to Tawi Tawi, and an attack against the latter's upbringing. These demeaning statements, coupled with Judge Inciong's act of aggressively advancing towards Atty. Gatdula, coming chest-to-chest with him, and pointing a finger at him, irrefragably constitute a violation of the foregoing rules of conduct envisaged in the CPRA. Verily, Judge Inciong also committed the less serious offense of simple misconduct, or such misconduct without the manifest elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules.[29]
Given the time interval, everybody at the PAO [] thought respondent Judge Inciong had simmered down and realized his mistake when he showed up at their office in the afternoon. Instead, he continued his verbal tirades at Atty. Gatdula. He even tried to provoke Atty. Gatdula sparks [sic] a physical confrontation by pushing his chest.[28]
Prejudicial conduct that gravely besmirches or taints the reputation of the service is classified as a serious charge under Section 14(1) of the current Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Section 17 of the same Rule provides that a serious charge is punishable either by a) dismissal from service with forfeiture of all or part of the benefits and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office; b) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than six months but not exceeding one year; or c) a fine of more than PHP 100,000.00 but not exceeding PHP 200,000.00. Nevertheless, Section 19 of the current Rule 140 considers the fact that the respondent is a first-time offender as a mitigating circumstance, which gives the Court the discretion to impose the penalties of suspension or fine for a period or amount not less than half of the minimum prescribed.
Applying the foregoing rules, and considering that this is Judge Inciong's first offense, I respectfully submit that Judge Inciong must be meted with a fine in the amount of PHP 80,000.00.
On the other hand, for Judge Inciong's use of vulgar or offensive language under Section 35(b)andsimple misconduct under Section 34(a) of the CPRA, he must be fined in the amount of PHP 30,000.00 pursuant to Sections 37(b), in relation to Sections 38(a)(1) and (4) and 39 of the CPRA, which pertinently provide as follows:
SECTION 37.Sanctions. –In arriving at such penalty, the first offense rule and Judge Inciong's expression of remorse[30]are considered as mitigating circumstances. Judge Inciong's use of vulgar or offensive language under Section 35(b)andsimple misconduct under Section 34(a) of the CPRA, must be punished with the appropriate penalty for the most serious offense, i.e., simple misconduct, pursuant to Section 40 of the CPRA.[31]
....SECTION 38.Modifying circumstances. –In determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed, the Court may, in its discretion, appreciate the following mitigating and aggravating circumstances:
- (b) If the respondent is found guilty of a less serious offense, any of the following sanctions, or a combination thereof, shall be imposed:
- (1) Suspension from the practice of law for a period within the range of one (1) month to six (6) months, or revocation of notarial commission and disqualification as notary public for less than two (2) years;
(2) A fine within the range of [PHP] 35,000.00 to [PHP] 100,000.00.SECTION 39.Manner of imposition –....
- (a) Mitigating circumstances:
- (1) First offense, except in charges of gross misconduct, bribery or corruption, grossly immoral conduct, misappropriating a client's funds or properties, sexual abuse, and sale, distribution, possession and/or use of illegal drugs or substances;
....
(4) Expression of remorse;
If one (1) or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the Supreme Court may impose the penalties of suspension or fine for a period or amount not less than half of the minimum prescribed under the CPRA.
A final cadence.It cannot be stressed enough that a judge's duty to observe propriety does not cease the moment he doffs his or her judicial robe. Integrity and propriety are pillars of judicial practice and any attempt by a member of the bench to blemish the same must not come to pass unnoticed. The exacting requirement of unceasing propriety is a due requital imposed upon judges as consideration for the noble public positions they occupy. Judges are enjoined from engaging in undignified conduct, for propriety is not only a continuing undertaking but also a sacrosanct commitment that magistrates, being the most apparent personification of justice, must exemplify and upholdat all times.
Judge Inciong's behavior ruthlessly runs roughshod the respect due the Court and his office. If the Court were to truly breathe life into the truism that "lawyers are officers of the court," then the Court mustnevertolerate such public display of arrogance and impropriety directed against its officers, most especially when committed by the very judges who are entrusted to uphold the rule of law. To do so not only fosters double standards but completely turns to naught all the Court's recent efforts to improve access to justice and bring the Court closer to the public.
Indeed, the Court's clarion call for propriety among the members of the judiciary is reverberated in the case ofCortes v. Judge Agcaoili[32]— "a magistrate of the law must comport himself at all times in such a manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can bear the most searching scrutiny of the public that looks up to him as the epitome of integrity and justice."[33]
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to find respondent Presiding Judge Rey P. Inciong of Branch 263, Regional Trial Court, Marikina City,GUILTYof Prejudicial Conduct that Gravely Besmirches or Taints the Reputation of the Service and order him toPAYaFINEof PHP 80,000.00. Likewise, he must be foundGUILTYof Use of Vulgar or Offensive Language under Section 35(b) and Simple Misconduct under Section 34(a) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability and meted with aFINEof PHP 30,000.00. Moreover, Presiding Judge Rey P. Inciong must beSTERNLY WARNEDthat a repetition of the same or similar offenses shall be dealt with more severely.
[1]Rollo, pp. 1-15. The April 13, 2023 Memorandum addressed to Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo was signed by Court Administrator Raul B. Villanueva and Assistant Court Adminstrator Lilian C. Barribal-Co.
[2]Id. at 1.
[3]Id. at 165.
[4]Id. at 167-168.SeeSeptember 15, 2023 Report and Recommendation of the JIB signed by JIB Acting Executive Director James D.V. Navarrete.
[5]A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, April 27, 2004.
[6]Obiedo v. Santos, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-20-2600, January 12, 2021 [Per J. Zalameda, First Division].
[7]SeeRe: Laarni N. Dajao, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2456, March 2, 2020 [Per J. Delos Santos, Second Division].
[8]Rollo, p. 84; 88.
[9]A.M. No. CA-20-36-P, August 3, 2021 [Per Curiam,En Banc].
[10]Seeid.
[11]OCA IPI No. 17-4749-P, August 8, 2023 [Per Curiam,En Banc].
[12]Seeid.
[13]OCA IPI No. 17-4749-P, August 8, 2023 [Per Curiam,En Banc].
[14]Id.
[15]Rollo, p. 87.
[16]Id. at 25-28.
[17]SeeRe: Complaint Against Mr. De Leon, EA III, OAJ Perez on the Alleged Dishonesty and Deceit in Soliciting Money for Investments, A.M. No. 2014-16-SC, 845 Phil. 680, 709 (2019) [Per J. Gesmundo,En Banc].
[18]Rollo, p. 7.
[19]Id. at 91.
[20]A.M. No. MTJ-99-1224, 442 Phil. 236 (2002) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
[21]Seeid. at 243.
[22]Rollo, p. 88.
[23]Id. at 33.
[24]Id. at 35.
[25]Id. at 33.
[26]Id. at 91.
[27]Id. at 90.
[28]Id. at 173.
[29]CPRA, Canon VI (Accountability), sec. 34(a).
[30]Rollo, pp. 87; 91.
[31]SECTION 40.Penalty for multiple offenses– ....
If a single act or omission gives rise to more than one (J) offense, the respondent shall still be found liable for such offenses, but shall, nonetheless, only be meted with the appropriate penalty for the most serious offense.
[32]355 Phil. 848 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban,En Banc].
[33]Id. at 877. (Citation omitted)