G.R. No. A.M. No. R-192-RTJ. January 9, 1987.
ATTY. ARTURO A. ROMERO, complainant, vs. HON. JUDGE GABRIEL O. VALLE, JR., respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Arturo A. Romero charged respondent Judge Gabriel O. Valle, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City with grave misconduct and oppression. The incident occurred during a trial on November 19, 1984. A dispute arose over the proper marking of an exhibit, with the judge insisting on one marking and the complainant loudly insisting on another. The respondent judge admonished the complainant for being unprepared and for bringing his “passion” to court. The confrontation escalated, leading the judge to forcefully bang his gavel and leave the rostrum. Complainant and his witness testified that the judge challenged him by saying, “You step out. We finish the matter,” before exiting.
The judge went to his chamber, then emerged and walked through the corridor towards the stairs. Crucially, he was holding his licensed handgun in its holster in his right hand, in view of the complainant and others in the courtroom. The judge claimed he had a permit to carry the firearm due to threats from the New People’s Army and that he had merely called a recess. After being informed of other pending cases, he returned, resumed session, and later denied the complainant’s motion for his inhibition.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Gabriel O. Valle, Jr. is administratively liable for grave misconduct based on his behavior during the court proceedings and his act of displaying a firearm.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is guilty of grave misconduct. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the investigating justice. While the judge had authority to carry a firearm for personal security, his display of the weapon in the courtroom under the specific circumstances was not innocent. Taken in the immediate context of the heated exchange and his angry departure from the bench, the act was calculated to instill fear or intimidate the complainant. This behavior constitutes a serious violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, which demand that a judge’s conduct be free from impropriety and that his personal behavior be beyond reproach.
Furthermore, the judge failed to maintain proper judicial decorum. By losing his temper, engaging in a loud argument with counsel, and banging his gavel forcefully instead of utilizing proper contempt powers to control the proceedings, he failed to preserve order and dignity in his court. A judge is the visible representation of law and justice; resorting to intimidating behavior contradicts the very rule of law he is sworn to uphold. Such conduct erodes public confidence in the judiciary. Accordingly, the Court ordered his dismissal from the service, without forfeiture of retirement benefits but with prejudice to reinstatement in government. The complainant was also required to show cause for his own conduct during the incident.