A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2630-RTJ, RTJ-07-2049, RTJ-08-2141, RTJ-07-2093

Multiple administrative complaints were filed against RTC Judge Evelyn S. Arcaya-Chua for alleged procedural irregularities, abuse of authority, misconduct and corruption.
The Court En Banc consolidated:

A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2630-RTJ (Ocampo Case) – complaint by Francisco P. Ocampo re custody/TPO orders in SP No. M-6375.
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2049 (Chang Tan/RCBC Case) – OCA report on selling TPOs/PPOs; petitions in SP No. M-6373 and RCBC attachment.
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2093 (Santos Case) – complaint by Sylvia Santos alleging judge solicited ₱100,000 for fixing Supreme Court cases.
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2141 (Judicial Audit Case) – audit at RTC Makati Branch 144, seizure of 1,975 marriage certificates, unpaid fees and falsified monthly reports.

Milan Arceo Ocampo filed for custody of minor daughters; Judge Arcaya-Chua issued hold-departure order and Temporary Protection Order (TPO) on April 3, 2007 directing custody, support (₱50,000/mo) and stay-away.
Francisco Ocampo’s motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for reconsideration were denied (March 22 and April 3, 2007).
Complainant alleged: abrupt scheduling, denial of motions despite evidence, issuing TPO before answer period lapsed, unsupported support award, over-zealous implementation (early-morning Maundy Thursday service in Baguio), and demand for money.
Judge’s Comment: orders proper under RA 9262 ex parte; service delays due to court calendar; no corrupt motive; sheriff’s actions were independent.

OCA memorandum (May 11, 2007) reported alleged rampant selling of TPOs/PPOs in Branch 144.
In SP No. M-6373 (Chang Tan v. Pulliam), Judge Arcaya-Chua issued a TPO and awarded temporary custody to the father (May 7–8, 2007). Complainant alleged undue haste, tailor-made orders, possible bribery and manifest partiality.
In RCBC v. Moreno (Civil Case 07-352), as pairing judge, she reset a preliminary attachment hearing from May 9 to April 23, 2007 and issued the writ ex parte. OCA alleged no urgency, suspicious speed.
Judge’s Comment: RA 9262 and Supreme Court circulars authorize ex parte TPO and provisional custody; re-raffled cases require prompt action; writ proper under pairing-judge circular; no corrupt motive or undue interest.

Judicial audit (May 15–17, 2007) at Branch 144 uncovered disposal of four plastic bags containing 1,975 marriage certificates.
Complaints: judge ordered disposal to conceal number of marriages; 1,809 solemnization fees (₱300 each) unpaid (₱542,700); monthly reports falsely recorded zero or fewer marriages.
Utility Worker Salvador Indicio testified he disposed bags believing them garbage per judge’s instruction; court clerks certified only 166 fees paid; judge’s staff signature on reports despite obvious errors.
Judge’s Affidavit: bags contained old scratch papers and certificates packed during pending transfer; disposal instruction pre-audit, no intent to hide; official receipts were in bags; unsigned reports allegedly tampered by a disgruntled aide. Clerk Victoria Jamora explained she signed reports in good faith, relying on judge’s direction.

Sylvia Santos alleged that in Sept–Oct 2002 she gave Judge Arcaya-Chua ₱100,000 to influence Supreme Court decisions on her friend Emerita Muñoz’s cases.
Judge denied soliciting money, claiming the meetings were for personal consolation; filed defamation charges instead.
Santos withdrew complaint in Sept 2007 citing family reconciliation; Court reopened case for contempt; Investigating Justice Salvador conducted hearings, found Santos credible and judge evasive.

Did Judge Arcaya-Chua commit harassment, grave abuse of authority, gross ignorance of law or gross misconduct by her procedural rulings and TPO implementation?

Did the judge exhibit gross ignorance of law, misconduct or partiality in issuing TPO to a man under RA 9262 and in granting an ex parte writ of preliminary attachment?

Did Judge Arcaya-Chua order the disposal of marriage certificates to conceal the true number of ceremonies, fail to remit fees, and falsify monthly reports?
Is Court Stenographer Victoria Jamora liable for signing inaccurate reports?

Did Judge Arcaya-Chua solicit and receive ₱100,000 for case-fixing in SC petitions, constituting dishonesty and gross misconduct?