MANILA — The Supreme Court (SC) has warned a Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge in Marikina City over his conduct during a parking-related incident involving a Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) lawyer that was circulated on social media.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC En Banc found that Judge Rey P. Inciong acted improperly when he publicly scolded PAO lawyer Atty. Ivanheck U. Gatdula and demanded a public apology.

The administrative case stemmed from a social media post showing Judge Inciong shouting at Atty. Gatdula inside the Marikina Hall of Justice. The incident started when Atty. Gatdula’s vehicle briefly blocked an access ramp for persons with disabilities and a pedestrian pathway while he logged his attendance to avoid being marked late. Atty. Gatdula immediately apologized several times.

Despite the apology, Judge Inciong demanded that Atty. Gatdula issue a public apology. The judge later went to the PAO office, where he again insisted on the apology and lost his temper.

Atty. Gatdula and his supervisor said the judge’s remarks and actions were intimidating and unnecessary, noting that an apology had already been made and that a public apology was no longer required.

The Office of the Court Administrator ordered Judge Inciong to explain his actions and initially recommended that he be reprimanded and sternly warned. The case was then referred to the Judicial Integrity Board, which recommended that Judge Inciong be found guilty of the light offense of vulgar and unbecoming conduct under Canon VI, Section 35(b) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.

In its ruling, the SC acknowledged Judge Inciong’s intention to enforce order in the Hall of Justice but stressed that this did not justify the use of harsh language or aggressive behavior.

Citing Canons II on Integrity and IV on Propriety of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, the SC reminded judges that even when dealing with improper conduct, they must act with restraint and uphold the dignity of their office, noting that public confidence in the judiciary depends on judges’ behavior.

The SC also said judges may exercise their right to free speech and expression, but only within the bounds of decency.

The Court noted that the incident was Judge Inciong’s first offense and that he has maintained a clean record in public service since 1999. While he was found free from administrative liability, the SC issued a warning that similar behavior in the future would merit more serious consequences.

In a Dissenting Opinion, Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao agreed with the Judicial Integrity Board’s recommendation to hold Judge Inciong liable for the use of vulgar or offensive language. He added that the judge should also be held liable for simple misconduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability and for conduct gravely prejudicial to the service under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court due to his rude and aggressive behavior toward Atty. Gatdula.