Case Summary (A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2630-RTJ, RTJ-07-2049, RTJ-08-2141, RTJ-07-2093)
Petitioners & Complaints
• Ocampo: harassment, grave abuse of authority, gross ignorance of law, gross misconduct, partiality, conduct prejudicial to service in issuing custody orders, TPO and support obligations
• OCA (Chang Tan/RCBC): alleged selling of TPO/PPOs, undue interest, irregular issuance of protection and attachment orders
• OCA (Judicial Audit): unauthorized disposal of 1,975 marriage certificates, non‐remittance of P542,700 in solemnization fees, failure to report marriages in monthly statistical reports
• Santos: alleged solicitation and receipt of P100,000 to influence Supreme Court decisions
Key Dates
• SP No. M-6375 filed Nov 27, 2006; summons Dec 12–13, 2006; custody TPO Apr 3–4, 2007
• Chang Tan TPO issued May 7–8, 2007; writ of attachment Apr 23, 2007
• Judicial audit conducted May 15-17, 2007
• Santos complaint filed July 14, 2005; preliminary conference Sept 4, 2007; reopened Mar 3, 2008; hearings Sept 3, 2008
• Consolidation of Ocampo and subsequent OCA complaints Apr 14, 2009
• Final Court decision promulgated Apr 23, 2010
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• Rule 140, Rules of Court (discipline of judges)
• R.A. No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004), Sec. 15
• Family Code Arts. 164, 176, 220
• A.M. No. 02-11-12-SC (Provisional Orders rule)
• Supreme Court Circular No. 19-98 (paired courts)
• New Code of Judicial Conduct, Canons 1, 2 and 4
• Omnibus Civil Service Rules (grave misconduct)
Factual Background (Ocampo Custody and TPO)
Milan Arceo Ocampo petitioned for sole custody of her two minor daughters in SP No. M-6375 before Judge Arcaya-Chua. The judge enjoined Francisco P. Ocampo from taking the minors abroad and granted visitation rights. Francisco moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; his motion and reconsideration were denied (Mar 22 & Apr 3, 2007). On Apr 3, 2007, Judge Arcaya-Chua issued a Temporary Protection Order (TPO), directing turnover of the minors, imposing stay-away and harassment prohibitions, and ordering P50,000 monthly support. The order was implemented with special sheriff service during Holy Week in Baguio City, which Francisco alleged was over-zealous and procedurally premature.
Administrative Charges (Ocampo Case)
Francisco charged the judge with:
- Denying his motion to dismiss despite evidence of non-residency of Milan in Makati
- Scheduling a hearing one day after service of summons
- Issuing a TPO before the answer period lapsed
- Granting support without factual basis and ignoring extraneous allegations (adultery, paternity dispute)
- Authorizing over-zealous implementation of the TPO
Judge’s Comment (Ocampo Case)
Judge Arcaya-Chua explained that expedited hearings and TPO issuance were mandated by OCA IPI rules, RA 9262 Sec. 15 and Family Code provisions concerning parental authority of the mother over illegitimate children. She justified the hearing schedule by full calendar and impending recess, reliance on petitioner’s own hearing dates, and the ex parte nature of TPOs. Support was provisional, based on Reasonable Needs rule and the petitioner’s unchallenged claim regarding paternity. Implementation timing followed the judge’s direction and coordination with petitioner’s counsel; she disavowed involvement in alleged forceful service by the special sheriff.
Chang Tan and RCBC Administrative Complaints
Reports reached the OCA of purported selling of TPOs/PPOs in Branch 144. In SP No. M-6373, Albert Chang Tan sought custody of his daughter Rafi Pulliam, obtaining a TPO and temporary custody order (May 7, 2007) and authorizing break-in service (May 8, 2007). Simultaneously, as pairing judge for Branch 143, Judge Arcaya-Chua expedited the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment for RCBC in Civil Case 07-352, rescheduling from May 9 to Apr 23, 2007 without evident urgency. The OCA alleged unusual interest and possible bribery.
Judge’s Comment (Chang Tan/RCBC)
Arcaya-Chua defended the Chang Tan orders under RA 9262 (child custody petitions), citing evidence of child abuse (psychiatric report, child’s statements) and her 13-year fast-track experience. Re-raffled custody cases were studied immediately, with hearings and orders issued within one week, consistent with her practice of alternate-Saturday reporting. The writ of attachment in RCBC was justified by the prolonged absence of the presiding judge, Circular No. 19-98 and verified documentary evidence. She denied ever receiving money from Chang Tan and explained her habit of holding in abeyance further implementation when controversies arose.
Judicial Audit Complaint (Marriage Certificates, Fees, Reports)
A judicial audit (May 15–17, 2007) found guards intercepting utility worker Salvador Indicio disposing plastic bags containing 1,975 marriage certificates solemnized by Judge Arcaya-Chua (Jan 2004–Apr 2007). Clerks of Court certified that only 166 corresponding P300 fees were remitted (totaling P49,800 vs. P542,700 due). The judge’s Monthly Reports of Cases showed zero or minimal marriages for the same period. OCA charged the judge with ordering document disposal, depriving the court of fees, and falsifying reports. Stenographer Jamora was charged for attesting to inaccurate reports.
Judge’s Affidavit (Audit Case)
Arcaya-Chua testified that she and staffer Noel Umipig boxed old scratch papers and relocated marriage certificates and fee receipts into plastic bags during planned sala transfer. She asserted that Indicio mistakenly disposed of all plastic bags as “trash” on May 17, thinking them the earlier-requested garbage. She maintained all receipts were inside bags, no couple complained of missing receipts, and that official marriages could not be registered without receipts. She suggested Umipig, harboring a grudge for denied loan requests, may have tampered with reports or documents. She explained she signed Monthly Reports first and expected clerks of court to follow.
Investigation and Hearing Process
Three investigative justices conducted consolidated hearings (Oct 2008–May 2009), receiving documentary and testimonial evidence from Ocampo, OCA, Chang Tan/RCBC witnesses (judges, clerks), audit team members (Atty. Corcelles-Aguila, security detail, clerks Magsombol and Ticman), Judge Arcaya-Chua, utility worker Indicio, stenographer Jamora, and the judge’s family. Extensive exhibits included marriage logs, daily collection books, official receipts, Monthly Reports, affidavits and calls for clarificatory cross-examination. Parties submitted memoranda (Judge Arcaya-Chua and Jamora; OCA waived).
Investigating Justice Findings (Ocampo Case)
• Denial of motion to dismiss and hearing schedule: within judicial discretion; no bad faith or partiality proven
• TPO issuance: justified under RA 9262 Sec. 15; ex parte provisional order may precede answer period
• Support award: provisional, based on petition allegations; error in amount not gross misconduct
• Implementation: no evidence judge orchestrated over-zealous service; special sheriff’s conduct was personal accountability
Conclusion: absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption; recommended dismissal of administrative charges.
Findings (Chang Tan/RCBC Case)
• TPO misapplication: R.A. 9262 applies only to women; issuance in favor of male petitioner constitutes gross ignorance of law
• Custody order: evidence of child abuse justified provisional custody, though appellate court later annulled order on merits
• Alleged bribery and undue interest: no proof of money received; “heated argument” unsubstantiated; presumption of regular performance applies
• Writ of attachment: expedited issuance lawful under Circular No. 19-98 and based on verified evidence; speed alone no
Case Syllabus (A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2630-RTJ, RTJ-07-2049, RTJ-08-2141, RTJ-07-2093)
Consolidated Cases Under Review
- Four administrative complaints against Judge Evelyn S. Arcaya-Chua were consolidated by en banc resolutions dated April 14, 2009 and January 15, 2008.
- A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2630-RTJ (“Ocampo Case”): Francisco P. Ocampo vs. Judge Arcaya-Chua.
- A.M. RTJ 07-2049 (“Chang Tan/RCBC Case”): Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Arcaya-Chua.
- A.M. RTJ 08-2141 (“Judicial Audit Case”): Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Arcaya-Chua and Stenographer Victoria C. Jamora.
- A.M. RTJ 07-2093 (“Santos Case”): Sylvia Santos vs. Judge Arcaya-Chua.
Facts and Charges in the Ocampo Case (A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2630-RTJ)
- Francisco P. Ocampo was respondent in SP No. M-6375 (custody petition filed by his wife Milan for two minor daughters).
- Trial judge issued on December 13, 2006 an order enjoining Ocampo from taking minors out of the country and granting visitation rights to Milan.
- Ocampo moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Makati vs. Bulacan residence); denied March 22, 2007; reconsideration denied April 3, 2007.
- On April 3, 2007, judge issued a Temporary Protection Order (TPO): turn over custody, stay-away directive, no removal, P50,000 monthly support exclusive of education/meds.
- Ocampo alleged irregularities: hearing set one day after summons, TPO issued before answer period lapsed, unsupported support award, overzealous servant execution during Holy Week in Baguio.
- He filed motions to inhibit and recall TPO; all denied by judge in April 2007.
- Charges: harassment, grave abuse of authority, gross ignorance of law, gross misconduct, manifest partiality, conduct prejudicial to service.
Judge’s Defense in the Ocampo Case
- Service and hearing dates: Order issued December 8, 2006; service attempts December 11–12; December 13 was last available hearing before Christmas recess.
- Denial of motion to dismiss within judicial discretion; parties could raise jurisdictional issue at hearing but did not.
- TPO issuance anchored on RA 9262, Sec. 15; Family Code Arts. 176, 220 on illegitimate children and mother’s authority.
- Ex parte reliefs under RA 9262 valid on filing, without awaiting answer; immediate service required by law.
- Support award provisional and based on wife’s petition; P150,000 prayer reduced to P50,000 as reasonable interim sum.
- Over-zealous service attributable to sheriff’s personal accountability; judge not privy to manner of service.
- Expediency necessitated by statutory mandates and backlog; ex parte admissions by petitioner (child abuse, paternity).
Investigation and Hearing in the Ocampo Case
- Assigned to Justice Salazar-Fernando for investigation, report and recommendation.
- Hearings October 23–29, 2008: complainant and judge gave direct and cross-examinations; documentary offers received.
- Court records of SP No. M-6375 were made available to investigating magistrate.
Findings and Ruling in the Ocampo Case
- Judge’s rulings fell within discretionary sphere; no evidence of corruption, bad faith or malice.
- TPO issuance correct under RA 9262 Sec. 15; ex parte issuance and immediate service mandatory.
- Errors in scheduling, support award or service zeal were abuse of discretion, not administrative misconduct.
- Recommendation adopted: DISMISSAL of charges for lack of substantial evidence.
Chang Tan/RCBC Case (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2049)
- OCA memo of May 11, 2007 reported “rampant selling” of TPOs at Makati RTC Br