Office of the Court Administrator v. Inciong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On March 9, 2023, Judge Rey P. Inciong (Judge Inciong) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Marikina confronted Atty. Ivanheck U. Gatdula (Atty. Gatdula) of the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) regarding a vehicle blocking a Persons with Disabilities (PWD) access ramp. In the morning, Judge Inciong berated Atty. Gatdula in the lobby, using terms such as "tarantado," "ugaling squatter," and threatening to have him "ipatapon sa Tawi-Tawi." In the afternoon, Judge Inciong entered the PAO office, demanded a public apology, and engaged in an intimidating physical stance, bringing his chest and face close to Atty. Gatdula's. Judge Inciong admitted to losing his temper but justified his actions as an attempt to seek accountability for the parking obstruction. Procedural History: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) initiated an administrative complaint following a viral social media post on "Abogadong Pinoy" and an anonymous report. The OCA initially recommended a reprimand. The matter was referred to the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB), which found Judge Inciong guilty of multiple counts of vulgar and unbecoming conduct and the use of offensive language under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), recommending the imposition of fines. The Petition: This administrative matter involves the Court's motu proprio review of Judge Inciong's conduct. Judge Inciong pleaded for compassion, citing his unblemished record since 1999 and the stress of the COVID-19 pandemic. He argued that while his words were harsh, they were intended to enforce order and ensure access for court users, particularly those with disabilities.
Issue(s)
Whether Judge Rey P. Inciong is administratively liable for his conduct and use of intemperate language towards Public Attorney's Office (PAO) lawyers.
Ruling
Judge Rey P. Inciong is ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties and WARNED that similar conduct in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court rules that while Judge Inciong's actions were technically justified by his intent to enforce order and clear a Persons with Disabilities (PWD) ramp, his manner of execution violated the standards of judicial temperament. Under Canons 2 and 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, judges must ensure their conduct is above reproach and perceived as such by a reasonable observer. The Court emphasizes that patience and courtesy are essential marks of culture and good breeding required in government service. Applying the principles in Spouses Jacinto v. Judge Vallarta, the Court notes that intemperate language detracts from the respect due to the bench and becomes self-destructive to the judicial office. Although the Judge was provoked by what he perceived as a lack of remorse and a violation of common courtesy, his demeaning reaction and physical intimidation were clearly disproportionate. However, the Court chooses to temper justice with mercy, noting that this is the respondent's first offense in a career spanning over two decades. Consequently, the Court finds that an admonition and a stern warning are sufficient to address the misconduct without meting out the harsher financial penalties recommended by the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB).
Main Doctrine
The judicial office circumscribes the personal conduct of a magistrate and imposes restrictions that are the price for occupying an exalted position in the administration of justice. A judge must be temperate, patient, and courteous in both conduct and language, as any resort to intemperate language detracts from the respect due to the bench and erodes public confidence in the judiciary. While a judge has the authority to maintain order within the courthouse, such as addressing parking obstructions, the manner of enforcement must remain within the bounds of decency and civility, avoiding disproportionate outbursts or physical intimidation.