P E T I T IO N F O R A U T H O R I T Y TO C O N T I N U E U S E O F T H E F I R M

N A ME " S Y C I P, S A L A Z A R , F E L IC I A N O , H E R N A N D E Z &
C A S T I L L O . " L U C IA N O E . S A L A Z A R , FL O R E N T I N O P.
F E L IC I A N O , B E N IL D O G . H E R N A N D E Z . G R E G O R IO R .
C A S T I L L O . A L B E RTO P. S A N J U A N , J U A N C . R E Y E S . J R . ,
A N D R E S G . G AT M A I TA N , J U S T I N O H . C A C A N I N D IN , N O E L A .
L A M A N , E T H E LW O L D O E . F E R N A N D E Z , A N G E L I TO C .
I M PE R IO , E D U A R D O R . C E N I Z A , T R I S TA N A . C AT I N D IG ,
A N C H E TA K . TA N , A N D A L IC E V. P E S I G A N , p e t i ti on e r s.

I N T H E M AT T E R O F T H E P E T I T I O N F O R A U T H O R I T Y TO
C O N T IN U E U S E O F T H E F IR M N A M E " O Z A E TA , R O M U L O , D E
L E O N , M A B A N TA & R E Y E S . " R I C A R D O J. R O MU L O ,
B E N JA M I N M . D E L E O N , R O M A N MA B A N TA , J R . , JO S E M A ,
R E Y E S , J E S U S S . J . S AY O C , E D U A R D O D E L O S A N G E L E S , A N D
J O S E F. B U E N AV E N T U R A , p e t i t i o n e rs .

92 SCRA 1
July 30, 1979
FACTS:

Two separate Petitions were filed before 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 be allowed to continue using, in the names of
their firms, the names of partners who had passed away.
ISSUE:

Whether the said law firms may continue its business under a firm
name which includes the name of a deceased partner.

RULING:

The Court ruled on the negative.

RATIO DECIDENDI:

I. 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 which provides:

A rt icle 18 15. Every pa rt ne rsh ip sha ll ope ra te u nde r a f irm n ame,

which may or ma y no t includ e t he na me o f on e or more of th e
part ners.

Thos e who , no t be in g me mb ers of t h e p art nership , includ e th eir

name s in t he f irm name, sh all b e s ubjec t t o t he liabilit y o f a pa rt ne r.
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.

II. Petitioners argue the last paragraph of Article 1840 of the Civil
Code explicitly sanctions the practice when it provides:

Last paragraph of Article 1840:

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.
The first factor to consider is that it is within Chapter 3 of Title IX
of the Code entitled "Dissolution and Winding Up." The Article
primarily deals with the exemption from liability in cases of a
dissolved partnership, of the individual property of the deceased
partner for debts contracted by the person or partnership which
continues the business using the partnership name or the name of
the deceased partner as part thereof.

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.
III. A partnership for the practice of law cannot be likened to partnerships
formed by other professionals or for business.

Primary characteristics which distinguish the legal profession from business

are:
1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a byproduct, and in
which one may attain the highest eminence without making much money.
2. A relation as an "officer of court" to the administration of justice involving
thorough sincerity, integrity, and reliability.
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree fiduciary.
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and
unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising and
encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with their clients.
IV. 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. A person in search of legal counsel might be guided by
the familiar ring of a distinguished name appearing in a firm title.
Petitioners cited Canon 33 of the Canons of Professional Ethics of the
American Bar Association" in support of their petitions. 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.
However, under our custom, firm names identify the more active and/or
more senior members or partners of the law firm. There is no local
custom which permits or allows the continued use of a deceased or
former partner's name in the firm names of law partnerships.
RULING:

The petitions are denied and petitioners are 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.
NOTE:

The use of a deceased partner's name in a law firm's name was

allowed upon the effectivity of the Code of Professional
Responsibility as approved by the Supreme Court on June 21,
1998.

Rule 3.02:
In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed
name shall be used. The continued use of the name of a
deceased partner is permissible provided that the firm indicates in
all its communications that said partner is deceased.