[11] In re Ladrera (Recio) administrative complaint for immorality was filed against him by Lucila
January 29, 1987 | GUTIERREZ, JR., J. | Lawyer’s Oath C. Casas.
PETITIONER: PETITION OF SOCORRO KE. LADRERA, 1954
SUCCESSFUL BAR EXAMINEE TO TAKE THE LAWYER’S OATH.
RESPONDENTS: ---
SUMMARY: Ladrera passed the Bar exam in 1954; however, before he could
take the Lawyer’s Oath, an administrative complaint for immorality was filed
against him by his wife, Lucila. Lucila claims that when she married Ladrera,
she believed that he was single; however, she found out that Ladrera had been
previously married to a certain Florencia with who he has a daughter with. In
line with this, Lucila filed a petition for the annulment of her marriage to
Ladrera, which was granted. Years later, Ladrera filed a civil case to declare his
first wife, Florencia, as presumptively dead. CFI-Davao granted such petition,
ruling that after Florencia ran away with another man back when Ladrera and
Florencia were together, Ladrera could no longer find her despite numerous
attempts. After Florencia was declared presumptively dead, Ladrera married his
third wife, Socorro Santos. HOWEVER, after such marriage, Florencia showed
up and filed a Bigamy case against Ladrera! [SHOOKT] Such bigamy case was
subsequently dismissed. Now, all that stood in the way of Ladrera was the
administrative complaint for immorality filed by his second wife, Lucila. Despite
an investigation ordered by the Supreme Court which supported the allegations
of Ladrera, the Court still granted the administrative complaint and
DISQUALIFIED Ladrera from taking the Lawyer’s Oath. This, however, did not
discourage Ladrera from consistently filing motions praying for the Court to
grant him the privilege to take the Lawyer’s Oath every single year for 31 years.
It was further noted by the Court that each and every motion filed by Ladrera
was DENIED. Now on his 32nd motion, Ladrera prays for the Court to allow
him to take the Lawyer’s Oath, alleging that he is now morally fit to be a
member of the Bar. WoN Ladrera should be granted the privilege to take he
Lawyer’s Oath. - YES. The Court noted that his 32-year disqualification is
enough punishment for any moral delinquency in the past. Furthermore, the
Court laid out the different acts and multiple endorsements made by respectable
people Ladrera submitted, showing his good moral character over the years.
Finally, the Court stated that Lucila has long withdrawn her administrative
complaint against Ladrera. All things considered, the Court allowed Ladrera to
be a member of the Bar.
DOCTRINE: An applicant for admission to the bar must be of good moral
character. (Rule 138, Sec. 2). What constitutes good moral character within the
meaning of the rule has been elucidated in precedent cases.
FACTS:
1. Socorro Ke. Ladrera passed the 1954 bar examinations. Before he could
participate in the scheduled oath taking of successful bar examinees, an
2. Lucila contends that she married Ladrera on 1944 and that when she
married him, he represented himself to be single. In 1948, Lucila learned
that her “husband,” Ladrera, had been previously married in 1936 to a
certain Florencia Orticio with whom he had a child named Monserrat.
3. 1949: Lucia filed a case for annulment of her marriage to Ladrera. The court
subsequently annulled their marriage and ordered Ladrera to give monthly
support (Php40) to his 3 children with Lucila.
4. 1951: Socorro Ladrera filed a civil case to declare his first wife, Florencia
Orticio as presumptively dead.
5. CFI-Davao:
a. Ladrera and his first wife, Florencia were married in 1936 in
Samar. They had a daughter, Monserra, who lived with Ladrera
from birth up to the date of the decision.
b. It appears that while living in Cebu, Florencia ran away with
another man named Ramon Esteban and left the conjugal
home without Ladrera’s knowledge!!!
c. Ladrera searched in Samar, Cebu, Bohol, and Manila, but he could
not find Florencia anymore.
d. CFI: All things considered, the petition to declare Florencia Orticio
presumptively dead for all intents and purposes of law has
satisfactorily been established.
6. After his first wife was successfully judicially declared presumptively dead,
Ladrera married his THIRD WIFE, Socorro Santos with whom he has 5
children. [same sila ng first name ni Ladrera]
a. After such third marriage, his First wife SHOWED UP and filed
a BIGAMY CASE against him with CFI-Davao. [WHAT A
TWIST]
b. However, this bigamy case was later DISMISSED as a result of
alleged “payments” made by Ladrera made in favor of Orticio.
7. On the basis of the administrative complaint for immorality filed against
Ladrera [NOTE: This was the one filed by his SECOND WIFE, LUCILA],
this Court suspended his oath taking and directed him to file an answer to
the complaint. In his Answer, Ladrera alleged that:
a. When he married complainant Lucila, he honestly believed that his
first wife, Florencia, was already dead.
b. That Lucila knew he was previously married to Florencia, because
Monserrat (his child w/ his first wife) lived with Lucila and
Ladrera during their marriage.
c. That Lucila’s motive in suing for annulment to respondent was to
get a share of the properties acquired by Ladrera, and as a matter of
fact, complainant has sold the properties adjudicated to her
pursuant to their annulment and used the money realized from the
sales for reasons NOT for the benefit of their 3 children.
d. That respondent married Socorro Santos and still lives with her in
 view of the court decision declaring Ladrera’s first wife, Florencia,
presumptively dead.
e. That mere filing of cases against Ladreda does not necessarily
reflect immorality on his part, not to mention the circumstances
that said cases were settled or otherwise dismissed.
f. That Lucila’s current charges were fueled by hatred and revenge.
8. Supreme Court Clerk of Court, Jose de la Cruz, was ordered to investigate
the administrative charge. He found:
a. The complainant, Lucila, refused to testify in the investigation.
b. On the other hand, Ladrera testified that he acted in good faith in
marrying Lucila and subsequently, marrying Socorro Santos.
i. He testified that he honestly believed that Florencia was
dead.
c. The testimony of Ladrera is unrefuted that he acted in good faith.
i. No annulment proceeding was instituted by Lucila until
after 3 children were born in her marriage with Ladrera,
which shows that Florencia was not generally known to
be alive.
ii. Ladrera was constrained to file a petition to declare
Florencia presumptively dead, because he realized that
Lucila annulled her marriage with him mainly to get her
share of their conjugal properties.
d. Ladrera has also presented evidence to show that he had complied
with his obligation to provide support at least to the date of this
investigation.
e. The claim that respondent is immoral because of the filing
against him of several civil cases, deserves no serious
consideration since, according to respondent’s evidence, said
cases, aside from having been dismissed or otherwise settled,
do not necessarily imply moral perversity.
"WHEREFORE, it is recommended that respondent Socorro
Ke. Ladrera be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath."
9. Notwithstanding such favorable recommendation, the Supreme Court still
DISQUALIFIED Ladrera from taking the lawyer’s oath, granting the
complaint for immorality filed by Lucila.
10. Up to now or more than 31 years after he passed the bar examinations,
Ladrera has not been allowed to take the lawyer’s oath. All his motions
filed EVERY YEAR has been DENIED. :(
11. Before us, now is Ladrera’s April 15, 1985 urgent motion, stating that he
has been deprived from taking his Lawyer’s Oath as member of the PH Bar
since 1955, because of a petition of Lucila Casas who has long ago
withdrawn her complaint and has in fact attested to the good reputation
and character of the herein respondent.
a. That considering that more than 30 years has elapsed, such time is
more than sufficient punishment. Ladrera now prays for the SC to
grant him the privilege to take the Lawyer’s Oath.
12. He also wrote another letter to the Court Administrator regarding his prayer.
ISSUE:
1. WoN Ladrera should be granted the privilege to take he Lawyer’s Oath. -
YES, because the 32 years of rejecting his petitions is enough for
chastisement and retribution. Considering the numerous acts that
Ladrera has done over the years and the endorsements by respectable
citizens, it is enough to rule that he has become a morally fit to become
a member of the Bar.
RULING: WHEREFORE the PETITION of Mr. Socorro Ke. Ladrera to be allowed
to take the lawyer’s oath is hereby GRANTED.
RATIO:
First Issue: Ladrera should be allowed to finally take the Lawyer’s Oath.
1. An applicant for admission to the bar must be of good moral character.
(Rule 138, Sec. 2). What constitutes good moral character within the
meaning of the rule has been elucidated in precedent cases.
2. Bacarro v. Pinataca: One of the indispensable requisites for admission to
the Philippine Bar is that the applicant must be of good moral character.
This requirement aims to maintain and uphold the high moral standards and
the dignity of the legal profession, and one of the ways of achieving this end
is to admit to the practice of this noble profession only those persons who
are known to be honest and to possess good moral character.
a. As a man of law, (a lawyer) is necessarily a leader of the
community, looked up to as a model citizen.’ He sets an example
to his fellow citizens not only for his respect for the law, but also
for his clean living.
b. Thus, becoming a lawyer is more than just going through a law
course and passing the Bar examinations. He must show that
he has the ability and the moral fitness required by his chose
vocation.
3. The Court, in the past, consistently denied the annual petitions of Ladrera
that he be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath. There may have been
compliance with a strict or narrow interpretation of the letter of the law but
the Court was of the view that Ladrera had failed to live up to the high
moral standards required for membership in the Bar.
4. All of that, however, is in the past. Ladrera submits that he humbly
believes with all candor and sincerity that he has more than atoned for
it by living a very moral and exemplary life since then.
5. Apart from his marital misadventures, there is nothing in the records to
warrant a permanent denial of Ladrera’s petition:
a. He worked as a janitor-messenger in Cebu while pursuing a
college education at night.
b. He served in fairly important positions in the government such as
 Technical Assistant to Pres. Magsaysay, Special Assistant to Pres.
Garcia, and later Chairman of the Board of People’s Homesite and
Housing Corporation.
c. In 1960, Senator Quintin Paredes endorsed his petitioner stating
that the latter was “honest, dependable, and trustworthy,” and gave
another endorsement in 1966.
d. In 1966, Lucila WITHDREW her complaint, stating that Ladrera’s
12-year suspension at that point in time was sufficient punishment
already.
e. The records show various indorsements of good character from
lawyers, a law professor in Davao City, a congressman, and others.
A priest, Fr. Emiliano Sabandal attested that Ladrera "is a man of
high moral character, humble and possessed with an innate
religious quality; as a consequence thereof he is a daily
communicant of the blessed sacrament.”
f. In the 32 years since Ladrera passed the Bar, he has supported and
sent through college ALL NINE CHILDREN from his three diff
wives.
g. Ladrera was a guerrilla officer during WW2.
h. He became a successful businessman in Davao.
6. There was moral delinquency in Mr. Ladrera’s younger days but he has
made up for it by observing a respectable, useful, and religious life since
then. Thirty-two years of rejecting his petitions are enough for chastisement
and retribution.
a. Considering that the respondent has realized the wrongfulness
of his past conduct and demonstrated a sincere willingness to
make up for that moral lapse, the Court has decided to admit
him to membership in the Philippine bar.