**FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ART.

11-12 OF THE CIVIL CODE

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 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 partners name in a professional firms 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 partners 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 partners
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 partners
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.