AM 53 Mj; (January, 1974) (Digest)
A.M. No. 53-MJ. January 31, 1974.
LOURDES CORPUS, complainant, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE CIPRIANO P. CABALUNA, JR., ALIMODIAN, ILOILO, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Lourdes Corpus was a prevailing party in a civil case for ownership of two parcels of land, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in 1963. Separately, respondent Municipal Judge Cipriano P. Cabaluna, Jr., acting as a Cadastral Judge, presided over Cadastral Case No. N-11 involving Lot No. 1762, claimed by Adriano Camarista. During the proceedings, Camarista sold the lot to spouses Procopio and Cleofe Cabalfin, and Judge Cabaluna ratified the deed of sale. He subsequently adjudicated the lot to the Cabalfin spouses on July 30, 1963.
It was later established in a separate civil case that Cadastral Lot No. 1762 was identical to one of the parcels of land previously adjudicated to Corpus and her co-plaintiffs. Corpus then charged Judge Cabaluna before the Secretary of Justice with “gross fraud,” alleging he knowingly ratified the sale and awarded the lot to the Cabalfins despite awareness of the pending appellate case involving the same property. The complaint was investigated, and the investigating judge recommended exoneration due to lack of evidence.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Cabaluna, Jr. is administratively liable for gross fraud in the performance of his judicial duties.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the charge and exonerated the respondent judge. The ruling emphasized that a charge of gross fraud demands clear and convincing proof, which was absent. Complainant’s sole basis was her testimony that in 1961, the judge inquired about the status of her civil case and she informed him it was on appeal. However, this conversation did not establish that the judge knew the specific property in that civil case was the same Cadastral Lot 1762. The civil case complaint did not identify the parcels using cadastral lot numbers. Notably, Corpus herself was unaware of this identity until 1964, long after the cadastral adjudication. The acts of ratifying the deed and adjudicating the lot were not inherently fraudulent without proof of connivance with the claimants to prejudice Corpus’s rights. Fraud cannot be inferred lightly from allegations or circumstances; it requires substantive evidentiary support. The Court found no such evidence of malicious intent or knowledge on the part of the judge.