Jhoreena R.

Castillo October 2,
2020
LAW - SEC 22

In re: Petition for Authority to continue use of the firm

name as “Sycip, Salazar, etc.” xxx, 92 SCRA 1 [1979]

A. Summary of Facts

There were two separate petitions that were filed in the 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 would be allowed to continue, base from the
name of their firm which is “Atty”, will still be used though both surviving
partners had passed away.

Petitioners’ have stated some arguments base from the surviving

partner’s petitions:

1) Under the Article 1840 of the Civil Code, A partnership is not

prohibited to continue the business and use the firm or business name
including the name of the deceased partner;
2) In due process, other professionals, such as accountancy and
engineering, the legislative has authorized an adoption of using the firm
name without any restrictions, in such firm name, the name of the
deceased partner.
3) The Canons of Professional Ethics went beyond the moral principle
that the name of the deceased partner, when permissible by local custom
is being use. It is not unethical in this kind of manner, However, take not
that no imposition or deception is practiced.
4) There would be no imposition or deception that would happen
because their deceased partners were being announced publicly through
newspapers after the incident.
5) There would be no local customs that would prohibit the surviving
partner from using the name of the deceased partner’s name in a
professional firm name.
6) Based from the US Courts, it is allowed that the surviving partner
would be able to continue using the name of the deceased partner firm
name of law partnerships.

B. What are the [three(3)] Issues Raised/Presented?

Whether or not the law firm “Sycip, Ozaeta , etc” is allowed to sustain
the name of their deceased partner Atty. Herminio Ozaeta, in the name of
their firm.

C. What is the ruling of the Supreme Court on these Issues?

No. The public relations values old firm name because they tend to
create undue advantages and disadvantages when it comes to the
practice of the profession. Any lawyer without connections would create a
name for himself for identification. Another lawyer can pursue and
continue the reputation using the name of the decease partner.

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).

In the Philippines, local customs does not permit or allow them to

continue using the name of the decease partner’s firm name due to
respect. Thus, those who are going to replace the deceased partner may
use other firm name rather than the deceased.

D. Do you agree with the decision? What part of the decision do you like
best and why? OR, in case you don’t agree with the decision, what do
you think would be the right decision?

Yes, I agree with the decision of the Court to deny the petition filed. The
use of the Article 1840 is really not applicable because it only covers the
cases wherein creditors of the dissolved partnership are also creditors of
person who owns the business. And I guess that the appropriate and best
article is Article 1815, where it clearly explains that partnerships cannot
continue to use the name of the deceased partner because the names of
the firm may either: in case of partners, must be name of living partner or in
case of non-partners, living persons who can be subjected to liability,
instead of the names of deceased partners who are no longer be held
liable for the partnership.