It is settled that in administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required to establish malfeasance is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, but substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2630-RTJ April 23, 2010

FRANCISCO P. OCAMPO, Complainant,
vs.
JUDGE EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA, Regional Trial Court, Branch 144, Makati City, Respondent.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

A.M. No. RTJ-07-2049

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant,
vs.
JUDGE EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA, Regional Trial Court, Branch 144, Makati City, Respondent.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

A.M. No. RTJ-08-2141
(Formerly A.M. No. 07-5-263- RTC Re: Initial Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 144, Makati City)

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant,
vs.
JUDGE EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA, Regional Trial Court, Branch 144, Makati City, and COURT STENOGRAPHER VICTORIA C. JAMORA, Regional Trial Court, Branch 144, Makati City, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

A.M. No. RTJ-07-2093

SYLVIA SANTOS, Complainant,
vs.
JUDGE EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA, Regional Trial Court, Branch 144, Makati City, Respondent.