A.C. No. 511 August 31, 1971
JOVITO SAPALO, complainant, vs. RAYFRANDO DIAZ, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Jovita Sapalo filed an administrative complaint against respondent Rayfrando Diaz, a 1970 bar passer, alleging they had amorous relations while students in Negros Occidental, resulting in her pregnancy. She asserted that Diaz promised to marry her, and an application for a marriage license was filed on June 15, 1968, but was later withdrawn by him without her knowledge. Despite her reminders, he failed to marry her. She gave birth to a child, Ma. Teresa Sapalo Diaz, on December 19, 1968, whom Diaz acknowledged as his own. Sapalo later discovered Diaz could not legally marry her because he was already married to another woman on December 25, 1968.
In his Answer, Diaz did not deny the relationship or paternity. He clarified both were single and 24 years old during the affair, which he described as mutual and voluntary. He resigned from his job in April 1968 to end the relationship. Upon learning of the pregnancy in May, Sapalo pressed for marriage. He reluctantly signed marriage application forms but withdrew them in June 1968 after deliberation, believing a forced marriage would lead to misery. He admitted giving financial assistance for the birth. A related civil case for recognition and support resulted in a stipulation of facts acknowledging the voluntary nature of the relationship and a court order for Diaz to provide monthly child support.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Rayfrando Diaz should be administratively disciplined as a member of the bar based on the complaint for deceit and immoral conduct.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint. The legal logic for dismissal rested on the complainant’s subsequent voluntary and verified withdrawal of her complaint, coupled with the findings from an independent investigation. After filing her complaint, Sapalo submitted a “Petition to Withdraw the Letter Complaint,” stating that both parties shared blame for the transgression and that it would be unfair to blame Diaz exclusively. The Court, to ensure the withdrawal was authentic and not coerced, ordered the Provincial Fiscal of Negros Occidental to verify its voluntariness.
The investigation conducted by the 1st Assistant Provincial Fiscal confirmed that Sapalo personally appeared before a judge, affirmed the truth of her withdrawal petition, and testified she was neither threatened nor forced. This judicial verification satisfied the Court that the desistance was genuine. Furthermore, the factual backdrop showed the intimate relationship was mutually entered into when both parties were single, and Diaz had subsequently fulfilled a legal obligation through a court order for child support. In administrative cases, the Court can dismiss a complaint upon its withdrawal, especially when the complainant loses interest and the withdrawal is formally verified to be free from duress. No compelling evidence of grossly immoral conduct warranting disbarment, distinct from the private relations already adjudicated in the civil case for support, remained. The dismissal was without prejudice to any future action should more serious grounds arise.