A.C. No. 547 - Reyes vs. Wong

Emerenciana V. Reyes, a holder of a Bachelor of Laws degree, filed a sworn complaint on October 26, 1962, seeking the disbarment of respondent Felipe C. Wong on the ground of grave immorality.
Felipe C. Wong, admitted to the Bar in 1962, denied the charge in his answer filed on December 17, 1962, asserting that he and the petitioner were merely friends.

On January 21, 1963, petitioner filed her reply to the respondent’s answer and attached xerox copies of two letters written by Wong (dated October 20, 1960 and December 14, 1960) intended to disprove his claim that he never corresponded with her.
The case was referred to the Solicitor General on December 28, 1962 for investigation, report, and recommendation.
Respondent subsequently filed a motion to dismiss on July 31, 1963, arguing that by virtue of the Soberano vs. Villanueva ruling (Dec. 29, 1962), petitioner's evidence did not make out a case against him.
A motion for the cancellation of all scheduled hearings was also filed by the respondent on August 1, 1963, pending resolution of his dismissal motion.
As the proceedings unfolded, petitioner opposed the dismissal motion (filed August 17, 1963) by highlighting that her situation was distinct from that in Soberano and adducing additional evidence, including numerous letters and telegrams wherein Wong addressed her by affectionate appellations.

Procedural resets occurred: an order was issued on June 9, 1972, for a hearing on June 20, 1972, which was then postponed.
The hearing was eventually continued on September 6, 1972 and reset to October 18, 1972 after respondent’s motion to file a related motion with the Court.
On September 13, 1972, respondent filed a motion reiterating his unresolved motion to dismiss from 1963, adding that subsequent to the administrative case, petitioner had initiated a civil action for recognition of natural children and support before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila.
A compromise agreement dated October 28, 1966, approved by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court on November 14, 1966, confirmed Wong’s acknowledgment of paternity and his commitment to support the children.

On November 21, 1972, petitioner filed an affidavit of desistance, requesting the withdrawal of the administrative complaint against Wong, stating that dismissal was for the good of her children.
Notwithstanding the withdrawal, the Solicitor General proceeded to consider and act upon the respondent’s motion to dismiss, given that withdrawal of a complaint does not ipso facto exonerate the respondent when he has rested his case.

Documentary evidence, including a purported marriage contract and letters, indicated that the petitioner and respondent cohabited as husband and wife, though the alleged marriage lacked proper registration and public solemnization.
The evidence also established that the petitioner knew of and participated in the relationship, evidenced by her own correspondence expressing concerns about their legal status and the implications for their families.
The consensual nature of the relationship is further underscored by the compromise agreement resolving the issue of paternity and support in a parallel civil case.

Whether the evidence presented by the petitioner established a prima facie case against respondent Felipe C. Wong to warrant disciplinary action.

Does the documentary and testimonial evidence sufficiently prove the occurrence of grave immorality?
Can the evidence support a charge that the conduct was "grossly immoral" rather than merely immoral?

Whether the relationship between the petitioner and respondent—characterized by cohabitation and mutual participation—meets the threshold of misconduct justifying disbarment.

To what extent does the petitioner’s active and voluntary participation diminish the allegation of irreversible moral turpitude?
How does the nature of their cohabitation, conducted with mutual consent, factor into the allegation of disbarment-worthy immorality?

Should the principles outlined in Soberano, which deal with intimacy outside of marriage not amounting to criminal or grossly immoral conduct, be applied to this case?
How do the factual distinctions in this case compare with those in Soberano regarding the legitimacy and consequences of an extramarital relationship?

The effect of the petitioner’s subsequent withdrawal of her complaint on the administrative proceeding.

Does withdrawal by a complainant, after having rested her case, preclude the continuation of disciplinary action?
What is the impact of related civil proceedings and the compromise agreement on the overall assessment of respondent’s conduct?