PETITION OF SOCORRO KE. LADRERA, 1954 SUCCESSFUL BAR EXAMINEE TO TAKE THE LAWYER’S OATH

Socorro Ke. Ladrera passed the 1954 bar examinations. 
Before he could participate in the scheduled oath taking of successful
bar examinees, an administrative complaint for immorality was filed against him
by Lucila C. Casas.

Lucila stated that she and Ladrera were married on May 23, 1944 and that when she married him, he represented
himself to be single.  Sometime in 1948, Lucila learned that her husband had been previously married
on March 23, 1936 to Florencia Orticio by whom he had a
child called Monserrat. 
Lucila filed a case for annulment of her
marriage to Ladrera on October 5, 1949. 
A decision was rendered on February 13, 1950 annulling the marriage
and ordering Ladrera to give P40.00 a month for the
support of his three minor children with Lucila.

In 1951, Socorro Ladrera filed a civil
case to declare his first wife, Florencia Orticio as presumptively dead.  In a November 24, 1951 decision, the Court
of First Instance of Davao stated that Ladrera and Orticio were married on March 23,
1936 in the Roman Catholic
church of Capul, Samar.  The couple had a daughter,
Monserrat Ladrera, who lived
with the petitioner from birth up to the date of the decision.  It
appears that, while the couple were living in
Cebu, Florencia Orticio, eloped with a
certain Ramon Esteban and left the conjugal home without the petitioner’s
knowledge.  Inspite of allegedly
determined searches by the petitioner in Samar, Cebu, Bohol, and
Manila, Florencia could not be located or her whereabouts
ascertained.  The court therefore ruled “that the petition to
declare Florencia Orticio
presumptively dead for all intents and purposes of law has satisfactorily been
established”.

Petitioner Ladrera had three children
with his second wife, Lucila C. Casas.

Sometime after the judicial declaration that his first wife was
presumptively dead, Ladrera married his third wife,
Socorro Santos by whom he has five children.  After Ladrera married a third time, his first wife showed up and
filed a bigamy case against him with the Court of First Instance of Davao.  According to the immorality complaint
filed by Lucila, the second wife, this bigamy
case was later dismissed as a result of alleged monetary concessions which
Ladrera made in favor of Orticio.  Incidentally, the latest information
about Florencia Orticio is
that she is quite well off, having inherited properties from her parents and
that she teaches Spanish at the
University
of Eastern
Philippines in Catarman, Samar.

On the basis of the administrative complaint filed against
Ladrera, this Court suspended his oath taking and
directed him to file an answer to the complaint.  In his Answer,
Ladrera alleged that:

“x x x
[W]hen he married complainant, he honestly believed that his first wife,
Florencia Orticio, was
already dead; that complainant in fact knew that respondent was previously
married because respondent’s child with Florencia
Orticio lived with respondent and complainant after
the latter’s marriage and until its annulment; that respondent has paid all the
monthly pensions to complainant’s three minor children; that respondent later
discovered that complainant’s motive in suing for annulment of her marriage to
respondent was to get a share of the properties acquired by respondent, and as a
matter of fact, complainant has squandered and sold the properties adjudicated
to her in Civil Case No. 470, and the money realized from the sales was not used
for the benefit of their children; that the value of the properties adjudicated
to the complainant in the case for liquidation of conjugal properties was
approximately P37,000.00; that respondent married Socorro Santos and still lives
with her in view of the decision in Civil Case No. 501, dated November 24, 1951,
declaring respondent’s first wife, Florencia Orticio presumptively dead; that respondent’s admission in
Civil Case No. 399 for annulment of complainant’s marriage, that Florencia Orticio was alive and
residing in Manila was made in good faith, he having then received information
from his brother, Fr. Emerardo Ladrera, that Florencia Orticio was in Manila; that subsequent search and inquiries,
however, led the respondent to believe that Florencia
Orticio was not alive and this resulted in the filing
by respondent of the petition in civil Case No. 501,
praying that Florencia Orticio be declared presumptively dead; that Criminal Case
No. 1863, against the respondent for bigamy, was dismissed by the Court of First
Instance of Davao upon motion of the City Attorney of
Davao; that the mere filing of civil cases against
respondent does not necessarily reflect immorality on his part, not to mention
the circumstances that said cases were settled or otherwise dismissed; that
complainant’s charges were motivated by hatred and revenge, intended as a ruse
to compel respondent to give to complainant another ten hectares of first class
agricultural land located in Monteverde, Calinan, Davao City, plus
complainant’s desire to put respondent down
politically.”

The then Supreme Court Clerk of Court, Jose S. de la Cruz,
was ordered to investigate the administrative charge and to submit his
report.

On August 31, 1955, de la Cruz submitted
his Report, the salient portion of which reads:

“It is noteworthy that the complainant had chosen not to testify in
the investigation, and that by merely presenting documentary evidence consisting
of copies of the complaint for annulment of marriage in Civil Case No. 399; the
decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao in
said case annulling the marriage between complainant and respondent; the
decision in Special Case No. 501 wherein the Court of First Instance of Davao declared respondent’s first wife, Florencia Orticio, presumptively
dead; the order of the Court of First Instance of Davao in Criminal Case No. 1863 against respondent for
bigamy, dismissing said case, the complainant is basing her charges of
immorality against respondent upon the latter’s bad faith arising from the fact
that, while in the annulment proceedings respondent and his attorney admitted
that Florencia Orticio was
alive, in Special Case No. 501 filed in 1951 by respondent, the latter claimed
that said Florencia Orticio
could not be located and was unheard from for several years, and from the fact
that he married for the third time Socorro Santos while respondent’s first wife
was alive, and who, as a matter of fact, filed a case for bigamy against
respondent.

“Upon the other hand, the respondent testified during the
investigation and declared that he acted in good faith, first, in marrying
complainant; secondly, in instituting Special Case No. 501; and, thirdly, in
marrying Socorro Santos.  He explained that when he married
complainant in 1944, he honestly believed that his first wife, Florencia Orticio, was already
dead; that he had to admit in the annulment proceedings, Civil Case No. 399,
that Florencia was alive because of a letter he
received from his brother, Fr. Ladrera; that he filed
the subsequent Special Case No. 501 after suspecting that complainant’s purpose
in annulling her marriage to respondent was merely to obtain her share in the
conjugal properties, and in order also to establish definitely his civil status;
and that he married his third wife, Socorro Santos, after the decision in
Special Case No. 501, declaring his first wife Florencia presumptively dead, had become final.

“While the complainant’s charges are based upon inferences or
assumptions, the testimony of respondent is unrefuted
that he acted in good faith.  In the first place, the fact that no
annulment proceeding was instituted by complainant until after three children
were born to her marriage with respondent, at least shows that Florencia Orticio was not
generally known to be alive.  In the second place, the admission by
respondent and his counsel in the annulment proceeding that Florencia was alive, is explained by respondent’s receipt of
a letter from his brother, Fr. Ladrera, to the
effect that she might still be living, which at any rate was the very fact
alleged in the complaint for annulment.  In the third place,
respondent was constrained to file Special Case No. 501 because he
subsequently realized that complainant annulled her marriage to
respondent mainly to get her share of their conjugal properties, and because he
also wanted to definitely settle his own civil status after failing to locate
the whereabouts of his first wife, Florencia Orticio; and the respondent undoubtedly had the right to
look for Florencia after his marriage to complainant
was judicially set aside on the ground that Florencia was alive.  It is very significant
that no opposition whatsoever was interposed in Special Case No. 501 either by
complainant or by Florencia inspite of due publication
of the proceedings; and the final decision therein can be said to have legally
paved the way for respondent’s third marriage to Socorro Santos. 
As a matter of fact, in the order of the Court of First Instance of Davao dismissing the bigamy case against respondent, it was
in effect held that respondent married Socorro Santos without fraudulent intent,
and said order had become
final.

“Complainant’s allegation that respondent has failed to comply with
his obligation to pay the monthly support of his three children with complainant
as ordered in the decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao in Civil Case No. 399, is neither touched nor pressed
in complainant’s memorandum.  At any rate, complainant may avail
herself of any appropriate civil remedy for the collection or enforcement (or
even increase) of said support; and respondent has presented evidence to show
that he had complied with his obligation at least to the date of this
investigation in March, 1955.  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.”

The favorable recommendation, notwithstanding, this Court,
on September 7,
1955 issued a resolution disqualifying Ladrera from taking the lawyer’s oath, to
wit:

“Acting upon the complaint for immorality filed by
Lucila Casas against Socorro
Ke. Ladrera, 1954
successful bar candidate; the answer filed by the latter; the evidence taken
during the investigation; the report of the investigator; as well as all the
circumstances surrounding the case, the Court RESOLVED to disqualify respondent
Socorro Ke. Ladrera from taking the lawyer’s
oath.”

A motion for reconsideration of the above-quoted resolution
was denied in another resolution issued on October 11, 1955.

Up to now or more than thirty-one years after he passed the
bar examinations, Ladrera has
not been allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.  All his motions to
allow him to take the oath filed every year without fail beginning on
May 23,
1956 up to September 7, 1982 have been
denied.  Before us, now is Ladrera’s
April 15,
1985 urgent motion, to wit:

“NOW COMES your petitioner, by and for himself and unto this
Honorable Supreme Tribunal most respectfully stated:

“That your petitioner has been deprived from taking his Lawyer’s
Oath as member of the Philippine Bar since January 20, 1955, because of a
petition of Lucila C. Casas
who has long ago withdrawn her complaint and has in fact attested to the good
reputation and character of the herein respondent;

“That considering the time that has elapsed which is already more
than thirty (30) years is more than sufficient punishment, your respondent now
prays this Honorable Tribunal to grant him the privilege to take the Lawyer’s
Oath together with the new successful candidates scheduled to take their oath on
April 25, 1985 at the Philippine Convention Center, Manila.”

On October 4, 1986, he wrote another
letter, this time to the Court Administrator asking for the approval of his
petition of nearly 32 years.

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.

In Carmen E. Bacarro v. Ruben M. Pinatacan
(127 SCRA 218), this Court cited various precedent cases and
ruled:

“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.  (Martin, Ruperto G., ‘Legal & Judicial Ethics,’ 5th ed., p. 15,
citing In Re Parazo, 82 Phil. 230) As a man of law, (a
lawyer) is necessarily a leader of the community, looked up to as a model
citizen.’ (Planza v. Arcangel, 21
SCRA 1, 4).  He sets an example to his fellow citizens not only for
his respect for the law, but also for his clean living.  (Martin,
supra, p. 36)
Thus, becoming a lawyer is more than just going through a law
course and passing the Bar examinations.  One who has the
lofty aspiration of becoming a member of the Philippine Bar must
satisfy this Court, which has the power, jurisdiction and duty to pass upon the
qualifications, ability and moral character of candidates for admission to the
Bar, that he has measured up to that rigid and ideal standard of moral fitness
required by his chosen vocation.”

The Court, in the past, consistently denied the annual
petitions of Ladrera that he be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.  He
claimed that when he married his second wife, he sincerely believed that
his first wife was already dead.  He married his third wife only
after the first wife had been declared presumptively dead and after his second
marriage had been annulled.  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.

All of that, however, is in the past.  Ladrera now states that if he has committed an act which
justified the suspension from taking the lawyer’s oath, the time that has
elapsed is more than sufficient punishment.  He 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”.

Apart from his marital misadventures, there is nothing in the
records to warrant a permanent denial of Ladrera’s
petition.  He worked as a janitor-messenger in
Cebu
City while pursuing his college
education at night.  He has also served in fairly important
positions in the government such as Technical Assistant to President Ramon Magsaysay, Special Assistant to President Carlos P. Garcia,
and member and later Chairman of the Board of People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation.  He has
served as Treasurer of the Escolta Walking Corporation
and Director of the Foreign Affairs Association of the
Philippines.

As early as 1960, then Senator Quintin Paredes endorsed Ladrera’s petition stating that the latter was
“honest, dependable, and trustworthy” and followed this up with another
endorsement in 1966.

In July 13,
1966, Lucila Casas filed a motion for the withdrawal or dismissal of her
complaint.  Casas stated as her
“considered opinion” that Ladrera has been
sufficiently punished by the then 12-year suspension of his oathtaking as a lawyer.  Casas stated that her children by Ladrera — Teresita, graduating
with AB and BSC degrees; Belen, preparatory medicine student; and Socorro, Jr.
an engineering student — were suffering from the stigma of the punishment which
arose from her complaint.  Casas observed
that Ladrera was “behaving well and leading an
exemplary life”.

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 chracter, humble and possessed with an innate religious
quality; as a consequence thereof he is a daily communicant of the blessed sacrament“.

In the 32 years since Ladrera passed the
bar examinations, he has supported and sent through college all his children by
the three women he married — a daughter by Florencia
Orticio, three children by Lucila Casas, and five children by
Socorro Santos.  Some of the children have joined their father in
his many petitions asking for the privilege of taking his
lawyer’s oath.

Ladrera was a guerrilla officer during
World War II in Bohol and
Mindanao.  After the war, he was elected
head of the Davao War Veterans Association and led the
veterans’ movement to acquire some of the lands left by Japanese-owners. 
He became a successful businessman in Davao, acquiring a
gasoline station, three corn and rice mills, and a transportation line called
“Ladrera Overland Transit”.

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.  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.

WHEREFORE, the
PETITION of Mr. Socorro Ke. Ladrera to be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath is hereby
GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J.,
Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Alampay, Cruz,
Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, and Bidin, JJ., concur.

Gancayco, J.,
on leave