Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 258 views

    29 in The Matter of The Use of The Firm Name Sycip, Salazar

    Uploaded by

    Rae Angela Garcia
    The Supreme Court denied petitions from two law firms seeking to continue using the names of deceased partners in their firm names. While Article 1840 of the Civil Code allows the use of a deceased partner's name, the Court found that firm names in the Philippines typically identify active partners to avoid potential deception of the public. The Court had previously directed other firms to remove deceased partners' names. However, one Justice dissented, arguing the firms' purpose was legitimate and no law or ethics were violated if the firms indicated the partners were deceased.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    29 in The Matter of The Use of The Firm Name Sycip, Salazar

    Uploaded by

    Rae Angela Garcia
    258 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court denied petitions from two law firms seeking to continue using the names of deceased partners in their firm names. While Article 1840 of the Civil Code allows the use of a deceased partner's name, the Court found that firm names in the Philippines typically identify active partners to avoid potential deception of the public. The Court had previously directed other firms to remove deceased partners' names. However, one Justice dissented, arguing the firms' purpose was legitimate and no law or ethics were violated if the firms indicated the partners were deceased.

    Original Description:

    Case digest

    Original Title

    29 in the Matter of the Use of the Firm Name Sycip, Salazar

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court denied petitions from two law firms seeking to continue using the names of deceased partners in their firm names. While Article 1840 of the Civil Code allows the use of a deceased partner's name, the Court found that firm names in the Philippines typically identify active partners to avoid potential deception of the public. The Court had previously directed other firms to remove deceased partners' names. However, one Justice dissented, arguing the firms' purpose was legitimate and no law or ethics were violated if the firms indicated the partners were deceased.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    258 views3 pages

    29 in The Matter of The Use of The Firm Name Sycip, Salazar

    Uploaded by

    Rae Angela Garcia
    The Supreme Court denied petitions from two law firms seeking to continue using the names of deceased partners in their firm names. While Article 1840 of the Civil Code allows the use of a deceased partner's name, the Court found that firm names in the Philippines typically identify active partners to avoid potential deception of the public. The Court had previously directed other firms to remove deceased partners' names. However, one Justice dissented, arguing the firms' purpose was legitimate and no law or ethics were violated if the firms indicated the partners were deceased.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    CASE TITLE: 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

    CASE NUMBER: G.R. No. X92-1. July 30, 1979


    Nature of the Case: Two separate petitions were filed before this court but both of them pray that they
    be allowed to continue using, in the names of their firms, the names of partners who had passed away.
    The Court ordered both petitions to be consolidated.
    PETITIONER: 1. Surviving partners of Atty. Alexander Sycip who died on May 5, 1975 and 2. Surviving
    partners of Atty. Herminio Ozaeta who died on February 14, 1976.

    Defense of the Petitioner: 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:

    "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."

    2. 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.

    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:
    ". . . 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. .
    . ."

    5. 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.

    Facts: (What happened)


    The question involved in these petitions first came under consideration by this Court in 1953 when a
    law firm in Cebu (the Dean 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.

    Petitioners herein now seek a re-examination of the policy thus far enunciated by the Court.
    Issue: Whether or not the respective firms be allowed to continue using the current name of their firms?
    Fallo: 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.

    Held: No.

    1. As what has been stated in Article 1815 of the Civil Code:

    "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.

    2. 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.

    3. While it is true that in the United States that the retention of the name of a deceased partner is
    unethical, it must be conceded that in the Philippines, no local custom permits or allows the
    continued use of a deceased or former partners 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. 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.

    4. 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.

    Notes:
    Separate Opinion

    Aquino, J. dissenting:
    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
    practiced 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.

    You might also like