MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has warned a Marikina City Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge for improper conduct during a parking-related incident involving a Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) lawyer, which was widely shared on social media. In a decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, the court En Banc found that Judge Rey Inciong acted inappropriately when he publicly scolded PAO lawyer Ivanheck Gatdula and insisted on a public apology. The incident, captured in a social media post, occurred at the Marikina Hall of Justice. Gatdula’s vehicle briefly blocked a ramp for persons with disabilities and a pedestrian walkway as he logged his attendance to avoid being marked late. He apologized immediately, but Inciong demanded a public apology. The judge later visited the PAO office, again insisting on an apology. His actions were described by Gatdula and his supervisor as “intimidating and unnecessary,” particularly since an apology had already been offered. Following the incident, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed Inciong to explain his actions and initially recommended a reprimand and stern warning. The matter was later referred to the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB), which found him guilty of the light offense of vulgar and unbecoming conduct under Canon VI, Section 35(b) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA). In its ruling, the tribunal acknowledged Inciong’s intent to maintain order but stressed that this did not justify harsh or aggressive behavior. Citing Canons II (Integrity) and IV (Propriety) of the CPRA, it reminded judges that even when addressing improper conduct, they must exercise restraint and uphold the dignity of their office. “Public confidence in the judiciary rests largely on the conduct of its judges,” the SC said. The court observed that this was Inciong’s first offense and that he has maintained a clean record in public service since 1999. While it cleared him of administrative liability, it issued a stern warning that any similar behavior in the future would be met with more serious consequences. In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao agreed with the JIB’s recommendation that Inciong should be held liable for the use of vulgar language. He argued that the judge’s rude and aggressive behavior toward Gatdula constituted simple misconduct under the CPRA and gravely prejudicial conduct under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.