A.C. No. 8616 - Re: Evelyn S. Arcaya-Chua

Case Summary (A.C. No. 8616)

Consolidated Complaints Originating from Judicial and Administrative Irregularities

The administrative cases against Atty. Arcaya-Chua stemmed from four consolidated complaints:

Francisco P. Ocampo v. Judge Arcaya-Chua (A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2630-RTJ), accusing her of harassment, grave abuse of authority, gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct, manifest partiality, and prejudicial conduct relating to motions she resolved in Special Proceedings No. M-6375.
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) v. Judge Arcaya-Chua (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2049), charging her with gross ignorance and misconduct for issuing a Temporary Protection Order under the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act benefiting a male petitioner instead of the woman petitioner, which was deemed an egregious legal error attributable to bad faith.
Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Arcaya-Chua and Court Stenographer Victoria C. Jamora (A.M. No. RTJ-08-2141), concerning a judicial audit revealing that Arcaya-Chua failed to declare and remit fees from 1,809 marriages she solemnized, amounting to PHP 542,700.00, and a court personnel, under her instruction, attempting to dispose of marriage certificates.
Sylvia Santos v. Judge Arcaya-Chua (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2093), where Santos accused Judge Arcaya-Chua of failing to return PHP 100,000.00 allegedly given to facilitate the speedy resolution of cases.

Initial Administrative Decisions and Penalties Imposed

Following investigations and recommendations by Justices Remedios Salazar-Fernando and Rebecca D. Salvador, the Supreme Court rendered the following decisions on April 23, 2010:

In the Ocampo complaint (A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2630-RTJ), the charges were dismissed due to lack of substantial proof.
In A.M. No. RTJ-07-2049, Judge Arcaya-Chua was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law arising from the erroneous issuance of the Temporary Protection Order and suspended for six months without salary and other benefits.
In A.M. No. RTJ-07-2093, her motion for reconsideration was denied, and the six-month suspension for gross misconduct was affirmed.
In A.M. No. RTJ-08-2141, Arcaya-Chua was found guilty of gross misconduct for failure to report marriage solemnizations and collection of fees and was dismissed from service with forfeiture of benefits except accrued leave credits, and barred from government re-employment. Court Stenographer Victoria C. Jamora was also dismissed for grave misconduct.
Upon service of this decision, both were deemed to have vacated their respective offices.

Referral for Disbarment Proceedings

Subsequent to the administrative dismissals and suspensions, the Supreme Court referred the cases to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for investigation and recommendation on possible disbarment of Atty. Arcaya-Chua. The OBC proceeded to require her comment and set hearings but encountered procedural delays including Atty. Arcaya-Chua’s request for abeyance, which was denied.

Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigation and Recommendations

Following procedural progress, the case was remanded to the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline, which conducted mandatory conferences, requiring verified position papers. Despite the complainant’s failure to appear or file requisite documents, Atty. Arcaya-Chua participated and filed her submissions. The Investigating Commissioner found her liable for violations of Rule 1.01, Rule 1.02 (Canons 1 and 13), and recommended a two-year suspension from the practice of law.

IBP Board of Governors’ Modification of Penalty and Basis

On December 2, 2021, the IBP Board of Governors modified the penalty to disbarment. It removed reliance on CPR Rules 6.02 and 13.01, finding them inapplicable, and instead anchored the disbarment recommendation on violations of CPR Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 11, and Rule 11.04, applying jurisprudence from Mariano v. Atty. Laki:

The Board emphasized that Atty. Arcaya-Chua’s conduct involved receiving money without rendering service, unjustified refusal to return funds, disrespect for the IBP directives, and tarnishing the judiciary’s image by implying cases can be won through improper influence.

Legal Standard for Disbarment and Evidentiary Threshold

The Court reiterated that the purpose of disbarment is to safeguard justice by removing lawyers unfit for practice due to misconduct, and that the evidence required is substantial evidence — enough relevant evidence for reasonable acceptance. Mere allegations, suspicion, or speculation are insufficient to sustain disbarment. The complainant carries the burden to prove the misconduct by substantial evidence.

Findings on Specific Acts of Misconduct and Defense Rejection

The Court found the disbarment justified based on the following:

The unreported and undeclared marriages, coupled with the attempt to dispose of marriage certificates, constituted deceit and lack of candor violating Rule 1.01 and Canon 10 of the CPR.
Solicitation of PHP 100,000.00 from Santos to facilitate case resolution and assurances implying favoritism or influence over the courts constitute violations of Canons 1, 7, and 11, and corresponding CPR rules, going against the Lawyer’s Oath and undermining public trust.
Atty. Arcaya-Chua’s defenses—including allegations of retaliation by Santos, claims of evidence tampering, recantation of material witnesses, and assertions of family pressure—were found unsupported and had been previously considered and rejected in earlier rulings.
The Court found Atty. Arcaya-Chua’s conduct seriously detrimental to the integrity of the judiciary and legal profession, reflecting a lack of moral character essential for the practice of law.
Prior related cases emphasize that misconduct justifying removal from the bench likewise warrants disbarment from the legal profession.

Applicable Ethical and Legal Provisions Violated by Atty. Arcaya-Chua

Atty. Arcaya-Chua violated the following:

Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 10 and Canon 11 of the CPR: Engaging in dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct; failing to maintain candor, respect, and dignity toward courts and judicial officers.
Rules 7.03 and Canon 7: Engaging in conduct reflecting adversely on her fitness to practice law and damaging to the legal profession.
Rule 11.

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 8616)

Background and Origin of the Case

The case stems from the Supreme Court’s April 23, 2010 decision in Ocampo v. Judge Evelyn S. Arcaya-Chua, where then Judge Arcaya-Chua was dismissed from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City.
The Court directed the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) to investigate the possible disbarment of Atty. Evelyn S. Arcaya-Chua (formerly a judge and then a lawyer).
The consolidated administrative complaints arose from several cases and audits involving Arcaya-Chua’s conduct both as a judge and lawyer.

Consolidated Administrative Cases and Complaints

A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2630-RTJ (Francisco P. Ocampo v. Judge Arcaya-Chua):
- Complaint of harassment, grave abuse of authority, gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct, manifest partiality, and prejudicial conduct.
- Concerned Judge Arcaya-Chua’s rulings on motions in Special Proceedings No. M-6375.
- Investigating Justice Remedios Salazar-Fernando found the judge’s resolutions legally grounded and dismissed Ocampo’s accusations.
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2049 (OCA v. Judge Arcaya-Chua):
- Complaint for gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct about issuing a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) under R.A. No. 9262 for a man against his wife.
- Justice Salazar-Fernando concluded the judge committed an error amounting to bad faith.
- Recommended six months suspension without salary.
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2141 (OCA v. Judge Arcaya-Chua and Stenographer Jamora):
- Judicial audit discovered failure to declare 1,809 marriages solemnized by Judge Arcaya-Chua in monthly reports.
- Failure to collect marriage solemnization fees totaling PHP 542,700.
- Court personnel caught attempting to dispose of marriage certificates under the judge’s instructions.
- Both found liable; Judge Arcaya-Chua was dismissed with forfeiture of benefits except accrued leaves, with prejudice to re-employment. Jamora dismissed with forfeiture of retirement benefits.
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2093 (Sylvia Santos v. Judge Arcaya-Chua):
- Complaint for serious misconduct and dishonesty.
- Accused of failing to return PHP 100,000 purportedly given to expedite case resolutions.
- Investigating Justice Rebecca D. Salvador found accusations credible; gross misconduct affirmed.
- Motion for reconsideration by Judge Arcaya-Chua denied.

Supreme Court’s April 23, 2010 Decision Summary

Dismissed charges in Ocampo case for lack of merit.
Found Judge Arcaya-Chua guilty of gross ignorance for the misapplication of law on TPO issuance, punished with six-month suspension without pay.
Found her guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed her for failure to declare marriages and collect fees.
Dismissed Stenographer Jamora for grave misconduct.
Judge Arcaya-Chua and Jamora deemed to have vacated offices and terminations effective immediately.
Referred the administrative cases to the OBC for disbarment investigation.

Progression of Disbarment Proceedings

OBC required Atty. Arcaya-Chua to comment on disbarment case.
Atty. Arcaya-Chua requested abeyance pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration, which this Court denied.
OBC continued the investigation and set hearings.
Atty. Arcaya-Chua filed arguments repeating earlier defenses and motions.
Matter was referred to Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline.
Mandatory conferences scheduled, but complainant Sylvia Santos failed to participate or file position papers; Atty. Arcaya-Chua participated and filed briefs.
Investigating Commissioner recommended two-year suspension for violations of specific Rules and Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

IBP Board of Governors’ Final Recommendation

On December 2, 2021, the IBP Board modified the recommendation from a two-year suspension to disbarment.
Removed reliance on certain Rules (6.02 and 13.01) as grounds but uphel