The Supreme Court on Friday meted a six-month suspension on a Makati regional trial court judge for receiving P100,000 in "grease money."

In its decision, the high tribunal said Judge Evelyn S. Arcaya-Chua of Makati City Regional Trial Court Branch 144 was guilty of receiviing money in exchange for a favorable decision involving the case of an aunt’s friend. The court said the complainant, Sylvia Santos, withdrew the complaint after Chua paid back the money.

"The need to maintain the public’s confidence in the judiciary cannot be made to depend solely on the whims and caprices of complainants who are, in a real sense, only witnesses therein. Thus, withdrawal of a complaint or desistance from a complaint will not deprive this Court of its power under the Constitution to ferret out the truth and discipline its members accordingly,” Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez wrote in the 13-page decision for the Court’s Third Division.

The case stemmed from a complaint for serious misconduct and dishonesty filed by Santos, aunt of Chua’s husband.

In her complaint, Santos said she asked the help of Chua, then Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 62 of Makati City, regarding the cases of Emerita Muñoz, which was pending before the SC. Santos said Chua asked for P100,000 which she said would be given to a court employee for the speedy resolution of the cases.

Santos said she gave the money to Chua in October 2002 and then followed up on the cases four months later. She said Chua told her the other party was offering P10 million to SC justices handling Muñoz’s cases. Chua denied the allegation.

The SC referred the complaint against Chua to the Court of Appeals (CA) for investigation, report and recommendation in 2007. The case was dismissed after Santos withdrew her complaint, for the sake of harmonious relations in their family.

The SC then asked Santos to explain why she should not be held in contempt of court after filing the complaint.

In her reply dated Jan. 6, 2008, Santos said all her allegations against Chua “are true and based on respondent’s personal knowledge” even though she had withdrawn the complaint.

On March 3, 2008, the SC reopened the case against Chua and directed the CA to conduct an investigation. The CA said there was “sufficient” basis to hold Chua liable since she asked Santos for forgiveness and returned the money.

“If it is true that she received no money… it necessarily and logically follows that respondent would not have returned – as in fact she would not have anything to return – said money to complainant,” Justice Salvador said.