Re: Post in Social Media Page, "Abogadong Pinoy" vs. Judge Rey P. Inciong

Judges must at all times observe temperance, patience, and courtesy in conduct and language, and intemperate or demeaning language degrades the judicial office; nevertheless, where a judge's disproportionate outburst was intended to enforce order in the courthouse and the circumstances show a first offense and an unblemished record, the Court may refrain from imposing administrative penalties and instead admonish and warn the judge to be more circumspect.

Judge Rey P. Inciong is the Presiding Judge of Branch 263, Regional Trial Court of Marikina City. Atty. Ivanheck U. Gatdula is a Public Attorney II of the Public Attorney's Office, and Atty. Rodaflor B. Larracas is the District Public Attorney of PAO Marikina. The administrative matter originated from an information received by the Office of the Court Administrator regarding a circulating social media post and from an anonymous complaint before the Judicial Integrity Board concerning a Marikina judge's alleged misbehavior toward a PAO lawyer. The case implicates the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.

Judge Rey P. Inciong, Presiding Judge of Branch 263, Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, and Atty. Ivanheck U. Gatdula, Public Attorney II of the Public Attorney's Office, were at the Justice Hall of Marikina City on March 9, 2023. In the morning, Judge Inciong arrived and parked at his designated space. He noticed a gray Mitsubishi Montero blocking the public thoroughfare, positioned in front of the access ramp for persons with disabilities and the pathway for judges and other pedestrians. Viewing this as a security threat, he instructed a member of his staff to call the attention of the security guard. He learned that the vehicle belonged to Atty. Gatdula.

While queuing for the elevator, Judge Inciong saw Atty. Gatdula move his vehicle about 10 meters away from its prior position and then join the line. Judge Inciong questioned why he initially parked in front of the PWD access ramp. Atty. Gatdula responded, "ah, ok lang po yun, sandali lang naman po." Upon further prodding, Atty. Gatdula clarified that he was merely trying to avoid disciplinary action for being tardy. This response caused Judge Inciong to lose his temper. He also noticed that Atty. Gatdula had his hands inside his pockets and, fearing that the latter was carrying a weapon, emphatically instructed him to remove his hands. Several security guards approached, some addressing Judge Inciong as "judge." Atty. Gatdula apologized. Judge Inciong nonetheless insisted on speaking to Atty. Gatdula's superiors.

Atty. Rodaflor B. Larracas, the District Public Attorney of PAO Marikina, approached them. Upon being apprised of the situation, she sought Judge Inciong's understanding and explained that it was their office policy to require PAO lawyers to explain their tardiness. She added that to avoid being late, she would also park her car in the same manner as Atty. Gatdula. Provoked by this response, Judge Inciong inquired whether it was also the policy of PAO to ignore and defy common courtesy just to avoid being tardy. He turned to Atty. Gatdula and asked if he was remorseful of his actions. Despite an affirmative answer, Judge Inciong retorted that he should apologize to all the people in the Justice Hall whom he had inconvenienced.

At the end of the workday, Judge Inciong inquired whether Atty. Gatdula complied with his directive to issue a public apology. He learned 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." In his letter to the OCA, Judge Inciong apologized for his behavior and for bringing disgrace to the court and to his fellow colleagues on the bench. He asked for forgiveness from both Atty. Larracas and Atty. Gatdula, stressing that he bore no menace or malice towards them. Nevertheless, he justified his actions by raising the heavy caseload and lack of a full complement of staff. In his Supplemental Explanation, he insisted that while he may have released imprudent words, none of them were directed at Atty. Gatdula, and he attributed his temper to anxiety from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Atty. Gatdula's incident report stated 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!" Judge Inciong 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!" 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 "wala po," Judge Inciong responded, "wala? 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, "get your god damn hands out of your pocket!" Judge Inciong then sought to speak to his superiors. Atty. Larracas arrived at the lobby at around 8:00 a.m. 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, she attempted to appease Judge Inciong, apologizing on Atty. Gatdula's behalf. Her efforts were futile, as Judge Inciong remained infuriated and required Atty. Gatdula to post a public apology at the lobby by noontime. Upon reaching the office, Atty. Larracas informed PAO Regional Director Marlon E. Buan regarding the incident and asked for guidance on issuing a public apology; he advised that no such apology should be issued. She reviewed the closed-circuit television footage, which showed that Atty. Gatdula only took ten seconds to clock in at the biometrics system, and called Atty. Gatdula in her office to comfort him.

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!" 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, "hindi 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?" 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 him in a loud voice, "uulitin 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, "hindi po." The escalating encounter prompted Atty. Ian R. Derez to intervene to pacify Judge Inciong. 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." Such efforts did not deter Judge Inciong from insisting that Atty. Gatdula still publicly apologize. 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.

Modesto C. Baua, Jr., Joe Marie C. Besagar, and Maricar C. Lucido, of the security personnel of the Justice Hall of Marikina City, issued a joint incident report. They heard Judge Inciong wanted to wait for Atty. Gatdula to talk to him, but during the conversation they heard Judge Inciong shouting and saying bad and hurtful words at Atty. Gatdula; Atty. Larracas arrived and tried to pacify them, but Judge Inciong continued speaking badly, prompting Atty. Larracas to ask for patience. The incident reports and Judge Inciong's own admissions formed the factual record. The JIB adopted the factual findings that Judge Inciong committed the acts, but the Supreme Court later exonerated him from administrative penalties.

• Denial of Profanity and Misconduct: Judge Inciong acknowledged his misdeeds and pleaded for the Court's forgiveness, but maintained that he could not recall uttering any profanity against Atty. Gatdula and Atty. Larracas; he argued that he did not engage in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, as he was merely being honest in his speech.
• Justification of Accountability: He claimed that he was seeking some sort of accountability from Atty. Gatdula for blocking the PWD access ramp, which could inconvenience court employees and users.
• Prayer for Compassion: He implored the Court to exercise compassion, understanding, and patience, citing the embarrassment and shame his family suffered, his unblemished record and reputation as a public servant since 1999, and his sworn duty to uphold the dignity of the judiciary; he also reassured the Court that he had taken concrete steps to manage his emotions.

• Administrative Liability: Whether respondent Judge Rey P. Inciong should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of.

• Administrative Liability: No. Although the Court agreed with the JIB's factual findings, respondent was exonerated from all charges; his actuations, while justified, warranted only an admonition and warning to be more circumspect in his conduct.

• Administrative Liability: The Court agreed with the JIB's factual findings but exonerated respondent from all charges. It reaffirmed that a judge is the visible representation of law and justice, must adhere to the highest tenets of judicial conduct, and must be temperate, patient, and courteous in conduct and language. Canons 2 and 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct require judges to ensure conduct above reproach and perceived as such, reaffirm faith in the judiciary, avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, accept personal restrictions, and conduct themselves consistently with the dignity of the judicial office. The Court found that Judge Inciong's morning and afternoon confrontations involved demeaning remarks, public humiliation, and an invasion of Atty. Gatdula's personal space, which he admitted. It also found that his demeaning reaction and sudden outbursts were disproportionate to the PAO lawyers' actions. Nevertheless, the Court did not lose sight of his intention to stop the practice of PAO lawyers parking in front of the entryway to avoid disciplinary action. Obstructing the entrance of PWDs and other court users warranted immediate attention, and Judge Inciong was simply enforcing order in the courthouse. While judges may be carried away by emotions, they must comport themselves with restraint, civility, and the ability to keep cool, and their freedom of expression must be exercised within the bounds of decency. Given that he was enforcing order, the Court refrained from imposing the JIB's recommended penalty. It exercised discretion to temper harshness with mercy, considered his first offense and unblemished record since 1999, and deemed it fit to admonish him to be more circumspect in speech and actions while dealing with the public, especially fellow government employees and members of the bar.

• Judicial Integrity and Propriety — Under Canons 2 and 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, judges must ensure their conduct is above reproach and perceived to be so, reaffirm the people's faith in the judiciary, avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, accept personal restrictions, and conduct themselves consistently with the dignity of the judicial office. The Court applied these standards to Judge Inciong's public outbursts and found that although his conduct fell short, his justifications and record warranted only an admonition.
• Judicial Temperament: Temperance, Patience, and Courtesy — Judges must be temperate, patient, and courteous both in conduct and language, exercise judicial temperament at all times, avoid vulgar and insulting language, and maintain composure and equanimity. The Court reiterated this duty but ultimately exonerated respondent from administrative penalties because he was enforcing order in the courthouse.
• Intemperate Language Degrades the Judiciary — A judge's resort to intemperate language detracts from the respect due the bench, erodes public confidence, and contributes to the degradation of the judicial office. The Court cited this principle but tempered its application with mercy due to respondent's first offense and unblemished record.
• Limited Freedom of Expression for Judges — Judges, like other citizens, may exercise freedom of expression, but they must always conduct themselves in a manner that preserves the dignity of the judicial office and avoid unnecessary and uncalled-for remarks. The Court reminded Judge Inciong that his speech had to remain within the bounds of decency.
• Accountability Without Offensiveness — Judges may hold colleagues and staff accountable for the efficient performance of their duties, but they must do so without being offensive in speech and must regulate their emotions, habits, and convictions. The Court found Judge Inciong's manner disproportionate even though his concern over the obstructed PWD ramp was legitimate.
• Discretion to Temper Discipline with Mercy — The Court may refrain from imposing recommended administrative penalties and instead admonish and warn an erring judge when the circumstances show that the judge acted to enforce order, it is his first offense, and he has an unblemished record. The Court applied this to Judge Inciong, admonishing him to be more circumspect and warning him that similar conduct would be dealt with more severely.

• "This Court agrees with the factual findings of the JIB, but exonerates respondent from all charges." — This states the dispositive outcome of the administrative complaint.
• "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." — This is the core holding explaining why no penalty was imposed despite the factual findings.
• "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.'" — This articulates the standard of judicial conduct and the Court's assessment of proportionality.
• "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." — This explains the rationale for refraining from the JIB's recommended penalty.

• Moroño vs. Judge Lomeda, 316 Phil. 103 (1995) — Cited for the principle that a judge is the visible representation of law and justice, from whom the people draw their will and inclination to obey the law, and must be the first to abide by the law and set an example.
• Spouses Jacinto vs. Judge Vallarta, 493 Phil. 255 (2005) — Cited to warn that judges who resort to intemperate language contribute to the degradation of the judicial office and the erosion of public confidence; the Court quoted its discussion on the restrictions imposed by judicial office.
• Tormis vs. Judge Paredes, 753 Phil. 41 (2015) — Cited to show that a judge may be disciplined for conduct unbecoming for intemperate remarks against a fellow member of the bench, while clarifying that judicial freedom of expression must preserve the dignity of the judicial office.
• Judge Misajon vs. Feranil, 483 Phil. 339 (2004) — Cited for the rule that judges may hold colleagues and staff accountable for efficient performance of duties but must do so without offensive speech and must regulate their emotions, habits, and convictions.
• Re: Anonymous Complaint Against Judge Edmundo T. Acuña, RTC, Caloocan City, Branch 123, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1891, July 28, 2005 — Cited for the ruling that a judge is guilty of impropriety for using humiliating and insensitive profanities, even if not directed at any person, because judges are subject to constant public scrutiny and must exhibit conduct consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.
• Re: Anonymous Complaint against Judge Gedorio, Jr., 551 Phil. 174 (2007) — Cited for the requirement that judges exercise judicial temperament at all times, avoid vulgar and insulting language, and maintain composure and equanimity; also the source of the statement that a judge, even faced with boorish behavior, must conduct himself as a gentleman and high officer of the court.

• Canon 2, Sections 1 and 2, Code of Judicial Conduct — Integrity provision requiring judges to ensure their conduct is above reproach and perceived to be so, and to reaffirm the people's faith in the judiciary so that justice is not only done but seen to be done. The Court cited this as part of the general norms of judicial conduct.
• Canon 4, Sections 1 and 2, Code of Judicial Conduct — Propriety provision requiring judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, accept personal restrictions as subjects of constant public scrutiny, and conduct themselves consistently with the dignity of the judicial office. The Court cited this in reminding judges of their duty of propriety.
• SC Administrative Order No. 03-05-01-SC (2004) — Adopting the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. The Court identified this issuance as the source of the Canons it applied.
• Canon VI, Section 35, Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability — Provision on use of vulgar or offensive language. The JIB recommended that Judge Inciong be found guilty under this provision, but the Court declined to impose the recommended penalty and exonerated him from all charges.

Chief Justice Gesmundo; Senior Associate Justice Leonen; Justices Hernando, Inting, Zalameda, Gaerlan, Rosario, and Marquez concurred.

• Justice Dimaampao — Dissented from the exoneration. He would have found Judge Inciong guilty of Prejudicial Conduct that Gravely Besmirches or Taints the Reputation of the Service under Section 14(1) of Rule 140, as amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, because the acts were committed in his personal capacity, had no direct relation or connection with his official duties, were not covered by any other specific offense, and gravely besmirched or tainted the reputation of the service. He also would have found him guilty of Use of Vulgar or Offensive Language under Section 35(b) and Simple Misconduct under Section 34(a) of the CPRA. He relied on Judge Inciong's admissions, the public nature of the twin incidents, the viral video, the demeaning remarks, the threat to send Atty. Gatdula to Tawi-Tawi, the attack on his upbringing, and the invasion of his personal space. He proposed a fine of PHP 80,000.00 for the serious charge and PHP 30,000.00 for the CPRA offenses, plus a stern warning. He also proposed elements for Gravely Prejudicial Conduct: (1) a prejudicial act; (2) no direct relation or connection with official duties; (3) not covered by any other specific offense; and (4) the conduct gravely besmirches or taints the reputation of the service.