Professional Documents
Culture Documents
in Re Ozaeta
in Re Ozaeta
Custom Search
EN BANC
PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE USE OF THE FIRM NAME "SYCIP, SALAZAR, FELICIANO,
HERNANDEZ & CASTILLO." LUCIANO E. SALAZAR, FLORENTINO P. FELICIANO, BENILDO G.
HERNANDEZ. GREGORIO R. CASTILLO. ALBERTO P. SAN JUAN, JUAN C. REYES. JR., ANDRES G.
GATMAITAN, JUSTINO H. CACANINDIN, NOEL A. LAMAN, ETHELWOLDO E. FERNANDEZ, ANGELITO C.
IMPERIO, EDUARDO R. CENIZA, TRISTAN A. CATINDIG, ANCHETA K. TAN, and ALICE V. PESIGAN,
petitioners.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE USE OF THE FIRM NAME "OZAETA,
ROMULO, DE LEON, MABANTA & REYES." RICARDO J. ROMULO, BENJAMIN M. DE LEON, ROMAN
MABANTA, JR., JOSE MA, REYES, JESUS S. J. SAYOC, EDUARDO DE LOS ANGELES, and JOSE F.
BUENAVENTURA, petitioners.
RESOLUTION
Two separate Petitions were filed before this Court 1) by the surviving partners of Atty. Alexander Sycip, who died
on May 5, 1975, and 2) by the surviving partners of Atty. Herminio Ozaeta, who died on February 14, 1976, praying
that they be allowed to continue using, in the names of their firms, the names of partners who had passed away. In
the Court's Resolution of September 2, 1976, both Petitions were ordered consolidated.
1. Under the law, a partnership is not prohibited from continuing its business under a firm name which includes the
name of a deceased partner; in fact, Article 1840 of the Civil Code explicitly sanctions the practice when it provides
in the last paragraph that:têñ.£îhqwâ£
The use by the person or partnership continuing the business of the partnership name, or the name of
a deceased partner as part thereof, shall not of itself make the individual property of the deceased
partner liable for any debts contracted by such person or partnership. 1
2. In regulating other professions, such as accountancy and engineering, the legislature has authorized the adoption
of firm names without any restriction as to the use, in such firm name, of the name of a deceased partner; 2 the
legislative authorization given to those engaged in the practice of accountancy — a profession requiring the same
degree of trust and confidence in respect of clients as that implicit in the relationship of attorney and client — to
acquire and use a trade name, strongly indicates that there is no fundamental policy that is offended by the
continued use by a firm of professionals of a firm name which includes the name of a deceased partner, at least
where such firm name has acquired the characteristics of a "trade name." 3
3. The Canons of Professional Ethics are not transgressed by the continued use of the name of a deceased partner
in the firm name of a law partnership because Canon 33 of the Canons of Professional Ethics adopted by the
American Bar Association declares that: têñ.£îhqwâ£
... The continued use of the name of a deceased or former partner when permissible by local custom, is
not unethical but care should be taken that no imposition or deception is practiced through this use. ... 4
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1979/jul1979/PETITION%20TOCONTINUE%20THE%20USE%20OF%20THE%20NAME%20SYCIP_1979.html Page 1 of 8
July 30, 1979 25/06/2018, 2*09 AM
4. There is no possibility of imposition or deception because the deaths of their respective deceased partners were
well-publicized in all newspapers of general circulation for several days; the stationeries now being used by them
carry new letterheads indicating the years when their respective deceased partners were connected with the firm;
petitioners will notify all leading national and international law directories of the fact of their respective deceased
partners' deaths. 5
5. No local custom prohibits the continued use of a deceased partner's name in a professional firm's name; 6 there is
no custom or usage in the Philippines, or at least in the Greater Manila Area, which recognizes that the name of a
law firm necessarily Identifies the individual members of the firm. 7
6. The continued use of a deceased partner's name in the firm name of law partnerships has been consistently
allowed by U.S. Courts and is an accepted practice in the legal profession of most countries in the world.8
The question involved in these Petitions first came under consideration by this Court in 1953 when a law firm in
Cebu (the Deen case) continued its practice of including in its firm name that of a deceased partner, C.D. Johnston.
The matter was resolved with this Court advising the firm to desist from including in their firm designation the name
of C. D. Johnston, who has long been dead."
The same issue was raised before this Court in 1958 as an incident in G. R. No. L-11964, entitled Register of Deeds
of Manila vs. China Banking Corporation. The law firm of Perkins & Ponce Enrile moved to intervene as amicus
curiae. Before acting thereon, the Court, in a Resolution of April 15, 1957, stated that it "would like to be informed
why the name of Perkins is still being used although Atty. E. A. Perkins is already dead." In a Manifestation dated
May 21, 1957, the law firm of Perkins and Ponce Enrile, raising substantially the same arguments as those now
being raised by petitioners, prayed that the continued use of the firm name "Perkins & Ponce Enrile" be held proper.
After carefully considering the reasons given by Attorneys Alfonso Ponce Enrile and Associates for
their continued use of the name of the deceased E. G. Perkins, the Court found no reason to depart
from the policy it adopted in June 1953 when it required Attorneys Alfred P. Deen and Eddy A. Deen of
Cebu City to desist from including in their firm designation, the name of C. D. Johnston, deceased. The
Court believes that, in view of the personal and confidential nature of the relations between attorney
and client, and the high standards demanded in the canons of professional ethics, no practice should
be allowed which even in a remote degree could give rise to the possibility of deception. Said attorneys
are accordingly advised to drop the name "PERKINS" from their firm name.
Petitioners herein now seek a re-examination of the policy thus far enunciated by the Court.
The Court finds no sufficient reason to depart from the rulings thus laid down.
A. Inasmuch as "Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez and Castillo" and "Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon, Mabanta and
Reyes" are partnerships, the use in their partnership names of the names of deceased partners will run counter to
Article 1815 of the Civil Code which provides: têñ.£îhqwâ£
Art. 1815. Every partnership shall operate under a firm name, which may or may not include the name
of one or more of the partners.
Those who, not being members of the partnership, include their names in the firm name, shall be
subject to the liability, of a partner.
It is clearly tacit in the above provision that names in a firm name of a partnership must either be those of living
partners and. in the case of non-partners, should be living persons who can be subjected to liability. In fact, Article
1825 of the Civil Code prohibits a third person from including his name in the firm name under pain of assuming the
liability of a partner. The heirs of a deceased partner in a law firm cannot be held liable as the old members to the
creditors of a firm particularly where they are non-lawyers. Thus, Canon 34 of the Canons of Professional Ethics
"prohibits an agreement for the payment to the widow and heirs of a deceased lawyer of a percentage, either gross
or net, of the fees received from the future business of the deceased lawyer's clients, both because the recipients of
such division are not lawyers and because such payments will not represent service or responsibility on the part of
the recipient. " Accordingly, neither the widow nor the heirs can be held liable for transactions entered into after the
death of their lawyer-predecessor. There being no benefits accruing, there ran be no corresponding liability.
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1979/jul1979/PETITION%20TOCONTINUE%20THE%20USE%20OF%20THE%20NAME%20SYCIP_1979.html Page 2 of 8
July 30, 1979 25/06/2018, 2*09 AM
Prescinding the law, there could be practical objections to allowing the use by law firms of the names of deceased
partners. The public relations value of the use of an old firm name can tend to create undue advantages and
disadvantages in the practice of the profession. An able lawyer without connections will have to make a name for
himself starting from scratch. Another able lawyer, who can join an old firm, can initially ride on that old firm's
reputation established by deceased partners.
B. In regards to the last paragraph of Article 1840 of the Civil Code cited by petitioners, supra, the first factor to
consider is that it is within Chapter 3 of Title IX of the Code entitled "Dissolution and Winding Up." The Article
primarily deals with the exemption from liability in cases of a dissolved partnership, of the individual property of the
deceased partner for debts contracted by the person or partnership which continues the business using the
partnership name or the name of the deceased partner as part thereof. What the law contemplates therein is a hold-
over situation preparatory to formal reorganization.
Secondly, Article 1840 treats more of a commercial partnership with a good will to protect rather than of a
professional partnership, with no saleable good will but whose reputation depends on the personal qualifications of
its individual members. Thus, it has been held that a saleable goodwill can exist only in a commercial partnership
and cannot arise in a professional partnership consisting of lawyers. 9 têñ.£îhqwâ£
As a general rule, upon the dissolution of a commercial partnership the succeeding partners or parties
have the right to carry on the business under the old name, in the absence of a stipulation forbidding it,
(s)ince the name of a commercial partnership is a partnership asset inseparable from the good will of
the firm. ... (60 Am Jur 2d, s 204, p. 115) (Emphasis supplied)
... a professional partnership the reputation of which depends or; the individual skill of the members,
such as partnerships of attorneys or physicians, has no good win to be distributed as a firm asset on its
dissolution, however intrinsically valuable such skill and reputation may be, especially where there is no
provision in the partnership agreement relating to good will as an asset. ... (ibid, s 203, p. 115)
(Emphasis supplied)
C. A partnership for the practice of law cannot be likened to partnerships formed by other professionals or for
business. For one thing, the law on accountancy specifically allows the use of a trade name in connection with the
practice of accountancy.10 têñ.£îhqwâ£
A partnership for the practice of law is not a legal entity. It is a mere relationship or association for a
particular purpose. ... It is not a partnership formed for the purpose of carrying on trade or business or
of holding property." 11 Thus, it has been stated that "the use of a nom de plume, assumed or trade
name in law practice is improper. 12
The usual reason given for different standards of conduct being applicable to the practice of law from
those pertaining to business is that the law is a profession.
Dean Pound, in his recently published contribution to the Survey of the Legal Profession, (The Lawyer
from Antiquity to Modern Times, p. 5) defines a profession as "a group of men pursuing a learned art as
a common calling in the spirit of public service, — no less a public service because it may incidentally
be a means of livelihood."
Primary characteristics which distinguish the legal profession from business are:
1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a byproduct, and in which one may attain the
highest eminence without making much money.
2. A relation as an "officer of court" to the administration of justice involving thorough sincerity, integrity,
and reliability.
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort to
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1979/jul1979/PETITION%20TOCONTINUE%20THE%20USE%20OF%20THE%20NAME%20SYCIP_1979.html Page 3 of 8
July 30, 1979 25/06/2018, 2*09 AM
current business methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with
their clients. 13
"The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is in the nature of a privilege or franchise. 14 It is
limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. 15 The right does
not only presuppose in its possessor integrity, legal standing and attainment, but also the exercise of a special
privilege, highly personal and partaking of the nature of a public trust." 16
D. Petitioners cited Canon 33 of the Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association" in support of
their petitions.
It is true that Canon 33 does not consider as unethical the continued use of the name of a deceased or former
partner in the firm name of a law partnership when such a practice is permissible by local custom but the Canon
warns that care should be taken that no imposition or deception is practiced through this use.
It must be conceded that in the Philippines, no local custom permits or allows the continued use of a deceased or
former partner's name in the firm names of law partnerships. Firm names, under our custom, Identify the more
active and/or more senior members or partners of the law firm. A glimpse at the history of the firms of petitioners and
of other law firms in this country would show how their firm names have evolved and changed from time to time as
the composition of the partnership changed. têñ.£îhqwâ£
The continued use of a firm name after the death of one or more of the partners designated by it is
proper only where sustained by local custom and not where by custom this purports to Identify the
active members. ...
There would seem to be a question, under the working of the Canon, as to the propriety of adding the
name of a new partner and at the same time retaining that of a deceased partner who was never a
partner with the new one. (H.S. Drinker, op. cit., supra, at pp. 207208) (Emphasis supplied).
The possibility of deception upon the public, real or consequential, where the name of a deceased partner continues
to be used cannot be ruled out. A person in search of legal counsel might be guided by the familiar ring of a
distinguished name appearing in a firm title.
E. Petitioners argue that U.S. Courts have consistently allowed the continued use of a deceased partner's name in
the firm name of law partnerships. But that is so because it is sanctioned by custom.
In the case of Mendelsohn v. Equitable Life Assurance Society (33 N.Y.S. 2d 733) which petitioners Salazar, et al.
quoted in their memorandum, the New York Supreme Court sustained the use of the firm name Alexander & Green
even if none of the present ten partners of the firm bears either name because the practice was sanctioned by
custom and did not offend any statutory provision or legislative policy and was adopted by agreement of the parties.
The Court stated therein: têñ.£îhqwâ£
The practice sought to be proscribed has the sanction of custom and offends no statutory provision or
legislative policy. Canon 33 of the Canons of Professional Ethics of both the American Bar Association
and the New York State Bar Association provides in part as follows: "The continued use of the name of
a deceased or former partner, when permissible by local custom is not unethical, but care should be
taken that no imposition or deception is practiced through this use." There is no question as to local
custom. Many firms in the city use the names of deceased members with the approval of other
attorneys, bar associations and the courts. The Appellate Division of the First Department has
considered the matter and reached The conclusion that such practice should not be prohibited.
(Emphasis supplied)
Neither the Partnership Law nor the Penal Law prohibits the practice in question. The use of the firm
name herein is also sustainable by reason of agreement between the partners. 18
Not so in this jurisdiction where there is no local custom that sanctions the practice. Custom has been defined as a
rule of conduct formed by repetition of acts, uniformly observed (practiced) as a social rule, legally binding and
obligatory. 19 Courts take no judicial notice of custom. A custom must be proved as a fact, according to the rules of
evidence. 20 A local custom as a source of right cannot be considered by a court of justice unless such custom is
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1979/jul1979/PETITION%20TOCONTINUE%20THE%20USE%20OF%20THE%20NAME%20SYCIP_1979.html Page 4 of 8
July 30, 1979 25/06/2018, 2*09 AM
properly established by competent evidence like any other fact. 21 We find such proof of the existence of a local
custom, and of the elements requisite to constitute the same, wanting herein. Merely because something is done as
a matter of practice does not mean that Courts can rely on the same for purposes of adjudication as a juridical
custom. Juridical custom must be differentiated from social custom. The former can supplement statutory law or be
applied in the absence of such statute. Not so with the latter.
Moreover, judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws form part of the legal system. 22 When the Supreme
Court in the Deen and Perkins cases issued its Resolutions directing lawyers to desist from including the names of
deceased partners in their firm designation, it laid down a legal rule against which no custom or practice to the
contrary, even if proven, can prevail. This is not to speak of our civil law which clearly ordains that a partnership is
dissolved by the death of any partner. 23 Custom which are contrary to law, public order or public policy shall not be
countenanced. 24
The practice of law is intimately and peculiarly related to the administration of justice and should not be considered
like an ordinary "money-making trade." têñ.£îhqwâ£
... It is of the essence of a profession that it is practiced in a spirit of public service. A trade ... aims
primarily at personal gain; a profession at the exercise of powers beneficial to mankind. If, as in the era
of wide free opportunity, we think of free competitive self assertion as the highest good, lawyer and
grocer and farmer may seem to be freely competing with their fellows in their calling in order each to
acquire as much of the world's good as he may within the allowed him by law. But the member of a
profession does not regard himself as in competition with his professional brethren. He is not bartering
his services as is the artisan nor exchanging the products of his skill and learning as the farmer sells
wheat or corn. There should be no such thing as a lawyers' or physicians' strike. The best service of
the professional man is often rendered for no equivalent or for a trifling equivalent and it is his pride to
do what he does in a way worthy of his profession even if done with no expectation of reward, This
spirit of public service in which the profession of law is and ought to be exercised is a prerequisite of
sound administration of justice according to law. The other two elements of a profession, namely,
organization and pursuit of a learned art have their justification in that they secure and maintain that
spirit. 25
In fine, petitioners' desire to preserve the Identity of their firms in the eyes of the public must bow to legal and ethical
impediment.
ACCORDINGLY, the petitions filed herein are denied and petitioners advised to drop the names "SYCIP" and
"OZAETA" from their respective firm names. Those names may, however, be included in the listing of individuals
who have been partners in their firms indicating the years during which they served as such.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Concepcion, Jr., Santos, Fernandez, Guerrero and De Castro, JJ., concur
Separate Opinions
The petitions are denied, as there are only four votes for granting them, seven of the Justices being of the contrary
view, as explained in the plurality opinion of Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera. It is out of delicadeza that the
undersigned did not participate in the disposition of these petitions, as the law office of Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano,
Hernandez and Castillo started with the partnership of Quisumbing, Sycip, and Quisumbing, the senior partner, the
late Ramon Quisumbing, being the father-in-law of the undersigned, and the most junior partner then, Norberto J.
Quisumbing, being his brother- in-law. For the record, the undersigned wishes to invite the attention of all
concerned, and not only of petitioners, to the last sentence of the opinion of Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera:
'Those names [Sycip and Ozaeta] may, however, be included in the listing of individuals wtes
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1979/jul1979/PETITION%20TOCONTINUE%20THE%20USE%20OF%20THE%20NAME%20SYCIP_1979.html Page 5 of 8
July 30, 1979 25/06/2018, 2*09 AM
I dissent. The fourteen members of the law firm, Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez & Castillo, in their petition of
June 10, 1975, prayed for authority to continue the use of that firm name, notwithstanding the death of Attorney
Alexander Sycip on May 5, 1975 (May he rest in peace). He was the founder of the firm which was originally known
as the Sycip Law Office.
On the other hand, the seven surviving partners of the law firm, Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon, Mabanta & Reyes, in
their petition of August 13, 1976, prayed that they be allowed to continue using the said firm name notwithstanding
the death of two partners, former Justice Roman Ozaeta and his son, Herminio, on May 1, 1972 and February 14,
1976, respectively.
They alleged that the said law firm was a continuation of the Ozaeta Law Office which was established in 1957 by
Justice Ozaeta and his son and that, as to the said law firm, the name Ozaeta has acquired an institutional and
secondary connotation.
Article 1840 of the Civil Code, which speaks of the use by the partnership of the name of a deceased partner as part
of the partnership name, is cited to justify the petitions. Also invoked is the canon that the continued use by a law
firm of the name of a deceased partner, "when permissible by local custom, is not unethical" as long as "no
imposition or deception is practised through this use" (Canon 33 of the Canons of Legal Ethics).
I am of the opinion that the petition may be granted with the condition that it be indicated in the letterheads of the
two firms (as the case may be) that Alexander Sycip, former Justice Ozaeta and Herminio Ozaeta are dead or the
period when they served as partners should be stated therein.
Obviously, the purpose of the two firms in continuing the use of the names of their deceased founders is to retain the
clients who had customarily sought the legal services of Attorneys Sycip and Ozaeta and to benefit from the
goodwill attached to the names of those respected and esteemed law practitioners. That is a legitimate motivation.
The retention of their names is not illegal per se. That practice was followed before the war by the law firm of James
Ross. Notwithstanding the death of Judge Ross the founder of the law firm of Ross, Lawrence, Selph and
Carrascoso, his name was retained in the firm name with an indication of the year when he died. No one
complained that the retention of the name of Judge Ross in the firm name was illegal or unethical.
# Separate Opinions
The petitions are denied, as there are only four votes for granting them, seven of the Justices being of the contrary
view, as explained in the plurality opinion of Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera. It is out of delicadeza that the
undersigned did not participate in the disposition of these petitions, as the law office of Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano,
Hernandez and Castillo started with the partnership of Quisumbing, Sycip, and Quisumbing, the senior partner, the
late Ramon Quisumbing, being the father-in-law of the undersigned, and the most junior partner then, Norberto J.
Quisumbing, being his brother- in-law. For the record, the undersigned wishes to invite the attention of all
concerned, and not only of petitioners, to the last sentence of the opinion of Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera:
'Those names [Sycip and Ozaeta] may, however, be included in the listing of individuals wtes
I dissent. The fourteen members of the law firm, Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez & Castillo, in their petition of
June 10, 1975, prayed for authority to continue the use of that firm name, notwithstanding the death of Attorney
Alexander Sycip on May 5, 1975 (May he rest in peace). He was the founder of the firm which was originally known
as the Sycip Law Office.
On the other hand, the seven surviving partners of the law firm, Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon, Mabanta & Reyes, in
their petition of August 13, 1976, prayed that they be allowed to continue using the said firm name notwithstanding
the death of two partners, former Justice Roman Ozaeta and his son, Herminio, on May 1, 1972 and February 14,
1976, respectively.
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1979/jul1979/PETITION%20TOCONTINUE%20THE%20USE%20OF%20THE%20NAME%20SYCIP_1979.html Page 6 of 8
July 30, 1979 25/06/2018, 2*09 AM
They alleged that the said law firm was a continuation of the Ozaeta Law Office which was established in 1957 by
Justice Ozaeta and his son and that, as to the said law firm, the name Ozaeta has acquired an institutional and
secondary connotation.
Article 1840 of the Civil Code, which speaks of the use by the partnership of the name of a deceased partner as part
of the partnership name, is cited to justify the petitions. Also invoked is the canon that the continued use by a law
firm of the name of a deceased partner, "when permissible by local custom, is not unethical" as long as "no
imposition or deception is practised through this use" (Canon 33 of the Canons of Legal Ethics).
I am of the opinion that the petition may be granted with the condition that it be indicated in the letterheads of the
two firms (as the case may be) that Alexander Sycip, former Justice Ozaeta and Herminio Ozaeta are dead or the
period when they served as partners should be stated therein.
Obviously, the purpose of the two firms in continuing the use of the names of their deceased founders is to retain the
clients who had customarily sought the legal services of Attorneys Sycip and Ozaeta and to benefit from the
goodwill attached to the names of those respected and esteemed law practitioners. That is a legitimate motivation.
The retention of their names is not illegal per se. That practice was followed before the war by the law firm of James
Ross. Notwithstanding the death of Judge Ross the founder of the law firm of Ross, Lawrence, Selph and
Carrascoso, his name was retained in the firm name with an indication of the year when he died. No one
complained that the retention of the name of Judge Ross in the firm name was illegal or unethical.
#Footnotes têñ.£îhqwâ£
2 Citing Sec, 16-A, Public Act No. 3105, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 342; Sec. 39,
Commonwealth Act No. 294; Sec. 23, Republic Act No. 318; Sec. 39, Republic Act No. 184.
8 Memorandum of Salazar, et al., pp. 6-7 and pp. 16-18; Petition of Romulo. et al., p, 5.
9 Seddal vs. Keating, 8 App. Div. 2d 44, 185 NYS 2d 630, affd 7 NY 2d 846, 196 NYS 2d 986, 164 NE
2d 860.
12 H.S. Drinker, Legal Ethics (1953), p. 206; see also Canon 33, par. 2, Canons of Professional Ethics.
14 7 C.J.S. 708.
15 Am Jur 270.
16 In re Lavine, 41 P2d 161, all cited in Martin, Legal and Judicial Ethics, Fifth Ed., p. 8.
17 Canons 1 to 32 which were adopted by the American Bar Association in 1908 were also adopted by
the Philippine Bar Association in 1917. The American Bar Association adopted Canons 33 to 45 in
1928, Canon 46 in 1933 and Canon 47 in 1937. On April 20, 1946, when Canons 33 to 47 where
already in effect, the Revised Constitution of the Philippine Bar Association was approved and it
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1979/jul1979/PETITION%20TOCONTINUE%20THE%20USE%20OF%20THE%20NAME%20SYCIP_1979.html Page 7 of 8
July 30, 1979 25/06/2018, 2*09 AM
provided that the Association "adopts and makes its own the Code of Ethics of the American Bar
Association." (Martin, Legal and Judicial Ethics, Fifth Ed. p, 341).
19 JBL Reyes & RC Puno, Outline of Philippine Civil Law. Fourth Ed., Vol. I, p. 7
25 Roscoe Pound, The Lawyer From Antiquity To Modern Times, (1953), pp. 9-10.
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1979/jul1979/PETITION%20TOCONTINUE%20THE%20USE%20OF%20THE%20NAME%20SYCIP_1979.html Page 8 of 8