In The Matter of the Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name “Ozaeta, Romulo, De
Leon…” etc. 
92 SCRA 1 July 30, 1979
Melencio-Herrera,  J.: 

Facts: The surviving partners of Atty. Herminio Ozaeta filed a petition praying that they be allowed to
continue using, in the name of their firm, the names of their partner who passed away. One of the
petitioners’ arguments stated that no local custom prohibits the continued use of a deceased partner’s
name in a professional firm’s name in so far as Greater Manila Area is concerned. No custom exists
which recognizes that the name of a law firm necessarily identifies the individual members of the firm.
They also stated 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: Whether or not the law firm “Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon, Mabanta & Reyes” is allowed to sustain
the name of their deceased partner, Atty. Herminio Ozaeta, in the name of their firm. 

Held:  NO. Canon 33 of the Canons of Professional Ethics adopted by the American Bar Association
stated the following: “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.”  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 Philippine custom, identify the more active or
senior partners in a firm. Firm names in the Philippines change and evolve when partners die, leave or a
new one is added. It is questionable to add the new name of a partner and sustain the name of the
deceased one since they have never been, technically, partners in the first place. When it comes to the
arguments of
the petitioners stating that U.S. Courts grant the continued use of the deceased partner’s name, this is so
because in the U.S., it is a sanctioned custom as stated in the case of  Mendelsohn v. Equitable Life
Assurance Society (33 N.Y.S 2d 733). This does not apply in the Philippines. The petition filed herein is
denied and petitioner is advised to drop the name “OZAETA” from the firm name.