A.M. No. 23-04-15-SC

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED to the Honorable Supreme Court that: The instant case against Respondent Judge Rey P. Inciong Branch 263, Regional Trial Court, Marikina City, be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter; Respondent Judge Inciong be found GUILTY of two (2) counts of vulgar and unbecoming conduct and FINED in 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 found GUILTY of 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 and FINED in 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 be STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely by the Court. [45] (Emphasis in the original) The issue before this Court is whether respondent Judge Rey P. Inciong should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of. 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: 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 appearan