Title
IN RE: Ladrera
Case
B.M. No. 135
Decision Date
Jan 29, 1987
Socorro Ke. Ladrera, initially prevented from taking the lawyer's oath due to an administrative complaint of immorality, was eventually admitted to the Philippine bar after over 30 years of petitioning, with the Supreme Court acknowledging his reformed character and exemplary life.
Font Size

Case Digest (B.M. No. 135)

Facts:

  • Socorro Ke. Ladrera passed the 1954 bar examinations.
  • He was prevented from taking the lawyer's oath due to an administrative complaint for immorality filed by Lucila C. Casas.
  • Lucila claimed she married Ladrera on May 23, 1944, believing he was single.
  • She later discovered Ladrera had a prior marriage to Florencia Orticio on March 23, 1936, with whom he had a child named Monserrat.
  • Lucila filed for annulment of her marriage to Ladrera on October 5, 1949, which was granted on February 13, 1950, along with an order for Ladrera to provide monthly support for their three children.
  • In 1951, Ladrera sought a judicial declaration of Florencia Orticio as presumptively dead, which was granted on November 24, 1951.
  • Ladrera subsequently married his third wife, Socorro Santos, and had five children with her.
  • After Florencia reappeared, she filed a bigamy case against Ladrera, which was dismissed.
  • The Supreme Court suspended Ladrera's oath-taking and ordered an investigation.
  • The investigation report, submitted by then Supreme Court Clerk of Court Jose S. de la Cruz, recommended allowing Ladrera to take the lawyer's oath.
  • The Court disqualified him on September 7, 1955.
  • Ladrera's subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied until his April 15, 1985, urgent motion and October 4, 1986, letter to the Court Administrator.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  1. Yes, Socorro Ke. Ladrera should be allowed to take the lawyer's oath.
  2. Yes, the time elapsed since the initial disqual...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court acknowledged that an applicant for admission to the bar must possess good moral character, as stipulated in Rule 138, Sec. 2.
  • Despite Ladrera's past marital misadventures, the Court found that he had lived a respectable, useful, and religious life for ov...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.