G.R. No. RTJ-04-1864. December 16, 2004. ATTY. ANTONIO D. SELUDO, complainant, vs. JUDGE ANTONIO J. FINEZA, Regional Trial Court, Branch 131, Caloocan City, respondent.
FACTS:

Atty. Antonio D. Seludo filed an administrative complaint against Judge Antonio J. Fineza for violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The complaint stemmed from a hearing on July 8, 2003, in a case for revocation of notarial commission filed by Judge Fineza against Atty. Seludo. During the proceedings, Judge Fineza, acting as the complainant-petitioner, uttered vulgar and insulting language toward Atty. Seludo. The transcript reveals that Judge Fineza called Atty. Seludo “Putang-ina mo” and described his attitude as “moronic” and “stupid,” despite repeated admonitions from the presiding Executive Judge to remain civil.
In his comment, Judge Fineza admitted to uttering the derogatory words but offered explanations. He cited his suffering from a heart ailment and diabetes, which he claimed affected his self-control. He also asserted that Atty. Seludo was impolite, interrupted him, and laughed at him during the hearing, which provoked his outburst. Judge Fineza expressed contrition but also expected greater respect due to his long tenure on the bench. Subsequently, Atty. Seludo moved to withdraw his complaint following Judge Fineza’s retirement.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Antonio J. Fineza is administratively liable for gross misconduct for his use of vulgar and insulting language during a court proceeding.

RULING

Yes, Judge Fineza is guilty of gross misconduct. The Supreme Court emphasized that a judge must possess and exhibit sobriety and self-restraint, acting with courtesy and dignity at all times. Judge Fineza’s use of profane and demeaning language, particularly the phrase “Putang-ina mo,” directly contravened Canon 2, Rule 2.01 and Canon 3, Rule 3.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which require a judge to behave in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and to be patient, dignified, and courteous.
The Court rejected his justifications. His health condition does not excuse such conduct, as the standards of judicial decorum are non-negotiable. Furthermore, the alleged provocation by Atty. Seludo does not justify a judge’s loss of temper and use of obscenities in open court. The Court noted this was not Judge Fineza’s first offense, having been previously reprimanded for intemperate language. His actions constituted gross misconduct, a serious charge under Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court. Although he had retired, the Court imposed a fine of Twenty-One Thousand Pesos (P21,000.00) to be deducted from his retirement benefits.