Supreme Court: Manila en Banc

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
July 30, 1979
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.
FACTS:
 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.
 Petitioners contends that 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.
 Petitioners contends that 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.
 Petitioner contends that no local custom prohibits the continued use of a deceased
partner's name in a professional firm's name; 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.
 Petitioners also contends that 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.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the surviving partners of the law firm “ Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon,
Mabanta & Reyes” is allowed to retain the name of the partners who already passed
away.
RULLING:
1. No. The surviving partners of the law form is not allowed to retain the name of the
partners who already passed away.
Under the law, Article 1815 of the Civil Code provides that 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.
Article 1840 of the Civil Code, primarily deals with the exemption from liability
in cases of a dissolved partnership. 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.
In this case at bar, 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.
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 can be no corresponding liability.
A partnership for the practice of law cannot be likened to partnerships formed by
other professionals or for business. 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." Thus, it has been stated that "the use of a nom de plume, assumed or trade
name in law practice is improper.
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.
Therefore, 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.

Supreme Court: Manila en Banc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supreme Court: Manila en Banc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT

July 30, 1979

PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE USE OF THE FIRM NAME "SYCIP,

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE USE OF

You might also like