You are on page 1of 1

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

FACTS:

The surviving parters 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.

RULING:

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.

You might also like