Buhangin Residents v. Nuñez-Malanyaon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves allegations of criminal falsification against Atty. Corazon Nuñez-Malanyaon. The complainant, Buhangin Residents and Employees Association for Development, Inc. (BREAD), through its president Arturo S. Asumbrado, accused Atty. Malanyaon of preparing and notarizing two irreconcilably inconsistent deeds of sale for the same parcels of land. One deed stated a consideration of P535,400.00, while the other stated P4,535,400.00, both bearing the same notarial entry. These deeds covered titled parcels of land in Buhangin, Davao City, with a total area of approximately 6.0475 hectares, which were purportedly sold by the registered owners. Procedural History: A petition for disbarment was filed against Atty. Malanyaon on May 2, 1994. The Supreme Court required Atty. Malanyaon to comment, which she did, denying any irregularity. This was followed by an exchange of pleadings, including a reply, rejoinder, and traverse. Subsequently, the Court, by Resolution dated October 7, 1996, directed both BREAD's president and Atty. Malanyaon to submit specific documents related to the case, including loan agreements, mortgage deeds, and notices of foreclosure, to the Bar Confidant. Various documents were then submitted by BREAD's counsel after some delay. The Petition: The petition for disbarment, initiated by Arturo S. Asumbrado for BREAD, alleges that Atty. Malanyaon committed criminal falsification by preparing and notarizing two deeds of sale for the same land with vastly different prices (P535,400.00 vs. P4,535,400.00). Asumbrado claims this led to BREAD being prejudiced, as it was obligated to repay a loan of P4,535,400.00, an amount larger than what it believed it had borrowed (P535,400.00), ultimately resulting in the foreclosure of the mortgage on the lands. The petition also notes that Asumbrado filed a separate complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman and a civil action in the Regional Trial Court of Davao City based on similar factual averments.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Corazon Nuñez-Malanyaon is guilty of falsification of public documents and should be administratively sanctioned. Whether Arturo S. Asumbrado should be held in contempt for attempting to mislead the Court.
Ruling
The petition for disbarment is DISMISSED for utter lack of merit. The Court ordered Arturo S. Asumbrado to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for attempting to foist falsities upon the Court and abuse of court processes.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of disbarment for falsification: The Court found that the petition for disbarment was grounded on false and misleading allegations. The documents submitted by the complainant, Arturo S. Asumbrado, actually corroborated respondent Atty. Malanyaon's version of the events. Asumbrado's claim that the agreed price was P535,400.00 was contradicted by several documents, including a Loan Agreement dated March 9, 1990, where he, representing BREAD, acknowledged a loan of P4,535,400.00 to finance the acquisition of the lands. Furthermore, a Real Estate Mortgage executed on May 2, 1990, also signed by Asumbrado for BREAD, secured an obligation of P4,535,400.00 in favor of CODE Foundation. The Court noted that the deed of sale stating the lower price (P535,400.00) appeared to be a copied and altered version of the deed stating the correct price (P4,535,400.00), with the latter clearly showing the original, higher consideration. The Court also highlighted the Letter-Guaranty from NHMFC and the offer letter from the landowners' attorney-in-fact, both indicating the actual purchase price was P4,535,400.00, making Asumbrado's claim of a P535,400.00 agreement "utterly preposterous." On the issue of contempt against Arturo S. Asumbrado: The Court found that Asumbrado was less than candid with the Court and deliberately made false claims. His assertion that he was unaware of the higher loan amount and was surprised to learn of the deed of sale with the P4,535,400.00 price was demonstrably false, as evidenced by the loan agreement and mortgage he signed. The Court concluded that Asumbrado attempted to foist falsities upon the Court and abuse court processes by filing a disbarment complaint based on these misleading allegations. Consequently, he was ordered to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who prepares and notarizes two irreconcilably inconsistent public instruments, and whose actions are found to be based on false and misleading allegations intended to mislead the Court, may be subject to administrative sanctions and potentially contempt proceedings for abuse of court processes.