6/16/2016 July 30, 1979

TodayisThursday,June16,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

July30,1979

PETITIONFORAUTHORITYTOCONTINUEUSEOFTHEFIRMNAME"SYCIP,SALAZAR,FELICIANO,
HERNANDEZ&CASTILLO."LUCIANOE.SALAZAR,FLORENTINOP.FELICIANO,BENILDOG.
HERNANDEZ.GREGORIOR.CASTILLO.ALBERTOP.SANJUAN,JUANC.REYES.JR.,ANDRESG.
GATMAITAN,JUSTINOH.CACANINDIN,NOELA.LAMAN,ETHELWOLDOE.FERNANDEZ,ANGELITOC.
IMPERIO,EDUARDOR.CENIZA,TRISTANA.CATINDIG,ANCHETAK.TAN,andALICEV.PESIGAN,
petitioners.

INTHEMATTEROFTHEPETITIONFORAUTHORITYTOCONTINUEUSEOFTHEFIRMNAME"OZAETA,
ROMULO,DELEON,MABANTA&REYES."RICARDOJ.ROMULO,BENJAMINM.DELEON,ROMAN
MABANTA,JR.,JOSEMA,REYES,JESUSS.J.SAYOC,EDUARDODELOSANGELES,andJOSEF.
BUENAVENTURA,petitioners.

RESOLUTION

MELENCIOHERRERA,J.: +.wph!1

TwoseparatePetitionswerefiledbeforethisCourt1)bythesurvivingpartnersofAtty.AlexanderSycip,whodied
onMay5,1975,and2)bythesurvivingpartnersofAtty.HerminioOzaeta,whodiedonFebruary14,1976,praying
thattheybeallowedtocontinueusing,inthenamesoftheirfirms,thenamesofpartnerswhohadpassedaway.In
theCourt'sResolutionofSeptember2,1976,bothPetitionswereorderedconsolidated.

Petitionersbasetheirpetitionsonthefollowingarguments:

1.Underthelaw,apartnershipisnotprohibitedfromcontinuingitsbusinessunderafirmnamewhichincludesthe
nameofadeceasedpartnerinfact,Article1840oftheCivilCodeexplicitlysanctionsthepracticewhenitprovides
inthelastparagraphthat: t.hqw

Theusebythepersonorpartnershipcontinuingthebusinessofthepartnershipname,orthenameof
adeceasedpartneraspartthereof,shallnotofitselfmaketheindividualpropertyofthedeceased
partnerliableforanydebtscontractedbysuchpersonorpartnership.1

2.Inregulatingotherprofessions,suchasaccountancyandengineering,thelegislaturehasauthorizedtheadoption
offirmnameswithoutanyrestrictionastotheuse,insuchfirmname,ofthenameofadeceasedpartner2the
legislativeauthorizationgiventothoseengagedinthepracticeofaccountancyaprofessionrequiringthesamedegreeof
trustandconfidenceinrespectofclientsasthatimplicitintherelationshipofattorneyandclienttoacquireanduseatrade
name,stronglyindicatesthatthereisnofundamentalpolicythatisoffendedbythecontinuedusebyafirmofprofessionals
ofafirmnamewhichincludesthenameofadeceasedpartner,atleastwheresuchfirmnamehasacquiredthe
characteristicsofa"tradename."3

3.TheCanonsofProfessionalEthicsarenottransgressedbythecontinueduseofthenameofadeceasedpartner
inthefirmnameofalawpartnershipbecauseCanon33oftheCanonsofProfessionalEthicsadoptedbythe
AmericanBarAssociationdeclaresthat: t.hqw

...Thecontinueduseofthenameofadeceasedorformerpartnerwhenpermissiblebylocalcustom,is
notunethicalbutcareshouldbetakenthatnoimpositionordeceptionispracticedthroughthisuse....4

4.Thereisnopossibilityofimpositionordeceptionbecausethedeathsoftheirrespectivedeceasedpartnerswere
wellpublicizedinallnewspapersofgeneralcirculationforseveraldaysthestationeriesnowbeingusedbythem
carrynewletterheadsindicatingtheyearswhentheirrespectivedeceasedpartnerswereconnectedwiththefirm
petitionerswillnotifyallleadingnationalandinternationallawdirectoriesofthefactoftheirrespectivedeceased
partners'deaths.5
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1979/jul1979/PETITION%20TOCONTINUE%20THE%20USE%20OF%20THE%20NAME%20SYCIP_1979.html 1/7
6/16/2016 July 30, 1979

5.Nolocalcustomprohibitsthecontinueduseofadeceasedpartner'snameinaprofessionalfirm'sname6thereis
nocustomorusageinthePhilippines,oratleastintheGreaterManilaArea,whichrecognizesthatthenameofalawfirm
necessarilyIdentifiestheindividualmembersofthefirm.7

6.Thecontinueduseofadeceasedpartner'snameinthefirmnameoflawpartnershipshasbeenconsistently
allowedbyU.S.Courtsandisanacceptedpracticeinthelegalprofessionofmostcountriesintheworld.8

ThequestioninvolvedinthesePetitionsfirstcameunderconsiderationbythisCourtin1953whenalawfirmin
Cebu(theDeencase)continueditspracticeofincludinginitsfirmnamethatofadeceasedpartner,C.D.Johnston.
ThematterwasresolvedwiththisCourtadvisingthefirmtodesistfromincludingintheirfirmdesignationthename
ofC.D.Johnston,whohaslongbeendead."

ThesameissuewasraisedbeforethisCourtin1958asanincidentinG.R.No.L11964,entitledRegisterofDeeds
ofManilavs.ChinaBankingCorporation.ThelawfirmofPerkins&PonceEnrilemovedtointerveneasamicus
curiae.Beforeactingthereon,theCourt,inaResolutionofApril15,1957,statedthatit"wouldliketobeinformed
whythenameofPerkinsisstillbeingusedalthoughAtty.E.A.Perkinsisalreadydead."InaManifestationdated
May21,1957,thelawfirmofPerkinsandPonceEnrile,raisingsubstantiallythesameargumentsasthosenow
beingraisedbypetitioners,prayedthatthecontinueduseofthefirmname"Perkins&PonceEnrile"beheldproper.

OnJune16,1958,thisCourtresolved: t.hqw

AftercarefullyconsideringthereasonsgivenbyAttorneysAlfonsoPonceEnrileandAssociatesfor
theircontinueduseofthenameofthedeceasedE.G.Perkins,theCourtfoundnoreasontodepart
fromthepolicyitadoptedinJune1953whenitrequiredAttorneysAlfredP.DeenandEddyA.Deenof
CebuCitytodesistfromincludingintheirfirmdesignation,thenameofC.D.Johnston,deceased.The
Courtbelievesthat,inviewofthepersonalandconfidentialnatureoftherelationsbetweenattorney
andclient,andthehighstandardsdemandedinthecanonsofprofessionalethics,nopracticeshould
beallowedwhicheveninaremotedegreecouldgiverisetothepossibilityofdeception.Saidattorneys
areaccordinglyadvisedtodropthename"PERKINS"fromtheirfirmname.

PetitionershereinnowseekareexaminationofthepolicythusfarenunciatedbytheCourt.

TheCourtfindsnosufficientreasontodepartfromtherulingsthuslaiddown.

A.Inasmuchas"Sycip,Salazar,Feliciano,HernandezandCastillo"and"Ozaeta,Romulo,DeLeon,Mabantaand
Reyes"arepartnerships,theuseintheirpartnershipnamesofthenamesofdeceasedpartnerswillruncounterto
Article1815oftheCivilCodewhichprovides: t.hqw

Art.1815.Everypartnershipshalloperateunderafirmname,whichmayormaynotincludethename
ofoneormoreofthepartners.

Thosewho,notbeingmembersofthepartnership,includetheirnamesinthefirmname,shallbe
subjecttotheliability,ofapartner.

Itisclearlytacitintheaboveprovisionthatnamesinafirmnameofapartnershipmusteitherbethoseofliving
partnersand.inthecaseofnonpartners,shouldbelivingpersonswhocanbesubjectedtoliability.Infact,Article
1825oftheCivilCodeprohibitsathirdpersonfromincludinghisnameinthefirmnameunderpainofassumingthe
liabilityofapartner.Theheirsofadeceasedpartnerinalawfirmcannotbeheldliableastheoldmemberstothe
creditorsofafirmparticularlywheretheyarenonlawyers.Thus,Canon34oftheCanonsofProfessionalEthics
"prohibitsanagreementforthepaymenttothewidowandheirsofadeceasedlawyerofapercentage,eithergross
ornet,ofthefeesreceivedfromthefuturebusinessofthedeceasedlawyer'sclients,bothbecausetherecipientsof
suchdivisionarenotlawyersandbecausesuchpaymentswillnotrepresentserviceorresponsibilityonthepartof
therecipient."Accordingly,neitherthewidownortheheirscanbeheldliablefortransactionsenteredintoafterthe
deathoftheirlawyerpredecessor.Therebeingnobenefitsaccruing,thereranbenocorrespondingliability.

Prescindingthelaw,therecouldbepracticalobjectionstoallowingtheusebylawfirmsofthenamesofdeceased
partners.Thepublicrelationsvalueoftheuseofanoldfirmnamecantendtocreateundueadvantagesand
disadvantagesinthepracticeoftheprofession.Anablelawyerwithoutconnectionswillhavetomakeanamefor
himselfstartingfromscratch.Anotherablelawyer,whocanjoinanoldfirm,caninitiallyrideonthatoldfirm's
reputationestablishedbydeceasedpartners.

B.InregardstothelastparagraphofArticle1840oftheCivilCodecitedbypetitioners,supra,thefirstfactorto
consideristhatitiswithinChapter3ofTitleIXoftheCodeentitled"DissolutionandWindingUp."TheArticle
primarilydealswiththeexemptionfromliabilityincasesofadissolvedpartnership,oftheindividualpropertyofthe
deceasedpartnerfordebtscontractedbythepersonorpartnershipwhichcontinuesthebusinessusingthe
partnershipnameorthenameofthedeceasedpartneraspartthereof.Whatthelawcontemplatesthereinisahold
oversituationpreparatorytoformalreorganization.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1979/jul1979/PETITION%20TOCONTINUE%20THE%20USE%20OF%20THE%20NAME%20SYCIP_1979.html 2/7
6/16/2016 July 30, 1979
Secondly,Article1840treatsmoreofacommercialpartnershipwithagoodwilltoprotectratherthanofa
professionalpartnership,withnosaleablegoodwillbutwhosereputationdependsonthepersonalqualificationsof
itsindividualmembers.Thus,ithasbeenheldthatasaleablegoodwillcanexistonlyinacommercialpartnership
andcannotariseinaprofessionalpartnershipconsistingoflawyers.9 t.hqw

Asageneralrule,uponthedissolutionofacommercialpartnershipthesucceedingpartnersorparties
havetherighttocarryonthebusinessundertheoldname,intheabsenceofastipulationforbiddingit,
(s)incethenameofacommercialpartnershipisapartnershipassetinseparablefromthegoodwillof
thefirm....(60AmJur2d,s204,p.115)(Emphasissupplied)

Ontheotherhand, t.hqw

...aprofessionalpartnershipthereputationofwhichdependsortheindividualskillofthemembers,
suchaspartnershipsofattorneysorphysicians,hasnogoodwintobedistributedasafirmassetonits
dissolution,howeverintrinsicallyvaluablesuchskillandreputationmaybe,especiallywherethereisno
provisioninthepartnershipagreementrelatingtogoodwillasanasset....(ibid,s203,p.115)
(Emphasissupplied)

C.Apartnershipforthepracticeoflawcannotbelikenedtopartnershipsformedbyotherprofessionalsorfor
business.Foronething,thelawonaccountancyspecificallyallowstheuseofatradenameinconnectionwiththe
practiceofaccountancy.10 t.hqw

Apartnershipforthepracticeoflawisnotalegalentity.Itisamererelationshiporassociationfora
particularpurpose....Itisnotapartnershipformedforthepurposeofcarryingontradeorbusinessor
ofholdingproperty."11Thus,ithasbeenstatedthat"theuseofanomdeplume,assumedortradenamein
lawpracticeisimproper.12

Theusualreasongivenfordifferentstandardsofconductbeingapplicabletothepracticeoflawfromthose
pertainingtobusinessisthatthelawisaprofession.

DeanPound,inhisrecentlypublishedcontributiontotheSurveyoftheLegalProfession,(TheLawyer
fromAntiquitytoModernTimes,p.5)definesaprofessionas"agroupofmenpursuingalearnedartas
acommoncallinginthespiritofpublicservice,nolessapublicservicebecauseitmayincidentally
beameansoflivelihood."

xxxxxxxxx

Primarycharacteristicswhichdistinguishthelegalprofessionfrombusinessare:

1.Adutyofpublicservice,ofwhichtheemolumentisabyproduct,andinwhichonemayattainthe
highesteminencewithoutmakingmuchmoney.

2.Arelationasan"officerofcourt"totheadministrationofjusticeinvolvingthoroughsincerity,integrity,
andreliability.

3.Arelationtoclientsinthehighestdegreefiduciary.

4.Arelationtocolleaguesatthebarcharacterizedbycandor,fairness,andunwillingnesstoresortto
currentbusinessmethodsofadvertisingandencroachmentontheirpractice,ordealingdirectlywith
theirclients.13

"Therighttopracticelawisnotanaturalorconstitutionalrightbutisinthenatureofaprivilegeorfranchise.14Itis
limitedtopersonsofgoodmoralcharacterwithspecialqualificationsdulyascertainedandcertified.15Therightdoesnot
onlypresupposeinitspossessorintegrity,legalstandingandattainment,butalsotheexerciseofaspecialprivilege,highly
personalandpartakingofthenatureofapublictrust."16

D.PetitionerscitedCanon33oftheCanonsofProfessionalEthicsoftheAmericanBarAssociation"insupportof
theirpetitions.

ItistruethatCanon33doesnotconsiderasunethicalthecontinueduseofthenameofadeceasedorformer
partnerinthefirmnameofalawpartnershipwhensuchapracticeispermissiblebylocalcustombuttheCanon
warnsthatcareshouldbetakenthatnoimpositionordeceptionispracticedthroughthisuse.

ItmustbeconcededthatinthePhilippines,nolocalcustompermitsorallowsthecontinueduseofadeceasedor
formerpartner'snameinthefirmnamesoflawpartnerships.Firmnames,underourcustom,Identifythemore
activeand/ormoreseniormembersorpartnersofthelawfirm.Aglimpseatthehistoryofthefirmsofpetitioners

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1979/jul1979/PETITION%20TOCONTINUE%20THE%20USE%20OF%20THE%20NAME%20SYCIP_1979.html 3/7
6/16/2016 July 30, 1979
andofotherlawfirmsinthiscountrywouldshowhowtheirfirmnameshaveevolvedandchangedfromtimetotime
asthecompositionofthepartnershipchanged. t.hqw

Thecontinueduseofafirmnameafterthedeathofoneormoreofthepartnersdesignatedbyitis
properonlywheresustainedbylocalcustomandnotwherebycustomthispurportstoIdentifythe
activemembers....

Therewouldseemtobeaquestion,undertheworkingoftheCanon,astotheproprietyofaddingthe
nameofanewpartnerandatthesametimeretainingthatofadeceasedpartnerwhowasnevera
partnerwiththenewone.(H.S.Drinker,op.cit.,supra,atpp.207208)(Emphasissupplied).

Thepossibilityofdeceptionuponthepublic,realorconsequential,wherethenameofadeceasedpartnercontinues
tobeusedcannotberuledout.Apersoninsearchoflegalcounselmightbeguidedbythefamiliarringofa
distinguishednameappearinginafirmtitle.

E.PetitionersarguethatU.S.Courtshaveconsistentlyallowedthecontinueduseofadeceasedpartner'snamein
thefirmnameoflawpartnerships.Butthatissobecauseitissanctionedbycustom.

InthecaseofMendelsohnv.EquitableLifeAssuranceSociety(33N.Y.S.2d733)whichpetitionersSalazar,etal.
quotedintheirmemorandum,theNewYorkSupremeCourtsustainedtheuseofthefirmnameAlexander&Green
evenifnoneofthepresenttenpartnersofthefirmbearseithernamebecausethepracticewassanctionedby
customanddidnotoffendanystatutoryprovisionorlegislativepolicyandwasadoptedbyagreementoftheparties.
TheCourtstatedtherein: t.hqw

Thepracticesoughttobeproscribedhasthesanctionofcustomandoffendsnostatutoryprovisionor
legislativepolicy.Canon33oftheCanonsofProfessionalEthicsofboththeAmericanBarAssociation
andtheNewYorkStateBarAssociationprovidesinpartasfollows:"Thecontinueduseofthenameof
adeceasedorformerpartner,whenpermissiblebylocalcustomisnotunethical,butcareshouldbe
takenthatnoimpositionordeceptionispracticedthroughthisuse."Thereisnoquestionastolocal
custom.Manyfirmsinthecityusethenamesofdeceasedmemberswiththeapprovalofother
attorneys,barassociationsandthecourts.TheAppellateDivisionoftheFirstDepartmenthas
consideredthematterandreachedTheconclusionthatsuchpracticeshouldnotbeprohibited.
(Emphasissupplied)

xxxxxxxxx

NeitherthePartnershipLawnorthePenalLawprohibitsthepracticeinquestion.Theuseofthefirm
namehereinisalsosustainablebyreasonofagreementbetweenthepartners.18

Notsointhisjurisdictionwherethereisnolocalcustomthatsanctionsthepractice.Customhasbeendefinedasa
ruleofconductformedbyrepetitionofacts,uniformlyobserved(practiced)asasocialrule,legallybindingand
obligatory.19Courtstakenojudicialnoticeofcustom.Acustommustbeprovedasafact,accordingtotherulesof
evidence.20Alocalcustomasasourceofrightcannotbeconsideredbyacourtofjusticeunlesssuchcustomisproperly
establishedbycompetentevidencelikeanyotherfact.21Wefindsuchproofoftheexistenceofalocalcustom,andofthe
elementsrequisitetoconstitutethesame,wantingherein.Merelybecausesomethingisdoneasamatterofpracticedoes
notmeanthatCourtscanrelyonthesameforpurposesofadjudicationasajuridicalcustom.Juridicalcustommustbe
differentiatedfromsocialcustom.Theformercansupplementstatutorylaworbeappliedintheabsenceofsuchstatute.Not
sowiththelatter.

Moreover,judicialdecisionsapplyingorinterpretingthelawsformpartofthelegalsystem.22WhentheSupreme
CourtintheDeenandPerkinscasesissueditsResolutionsdirectinglawyerstodesistfromincludingthenamesofdeceased
partnersintheirfirmdesignation,itlaiddownalegalruleagainstwhichnocustomorpracticetothecontrary,evenifproven,
canprevail.Thisisnottospeakofourcivillawwhichclearlyordainsthatapartnershipisdissolvedbythedeathofany
partner.23Customwhicharecontrarytolaw,publicorderorpublicpolicyshallnotbecountenanced.24

Thepracticeoflawisintimatelyandpeculiarlyrelatedtotheadministrationofjusticeandshouldnotbeconsidered
likeanordinary"moneymakingtrade." t.hqw

...Itisoftheessenceofaprofessionthatitispracticedinaspiritofpublicservice.Atrade...aims
primarilyatpersonalgainaprofessionattheexerciseofpowersbeneficialtomankind.If,asintheera
ofwidefreeopportunity,wethinkoffreecompetitiveselfassertionasthehighestgood,lawyerand
grocerandfarmermayseemtobefreelycompetingwiththeirfellowsintheircallinginordereachto
acquireasmuchoftheworld'sgoodashemaywithintheallowedhimbylaw.Butthememberofa
professiondoesnotregardhimselfasincompetitionwithhisprofessionalbrethren.Heisnotbartering
hisservicesasistheartisannorexchangingtheproductsofhisskillandlearningasthefarmersells
wheatorcorn.Thereshouldbenosuchthingasalawyers'orphysicians'strike.Thebestserviceof

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1979/jul1979/PETITION%20TOCONTINUE%20THE%20USE%20OF%20THE%20NAME%20SYCIP_1979.html 4/7
6/16/2016 July 30, 1979
theprofessionalmanisoftenrenderedfornoequivalentorforatriflingequivalentanditishisprideto
dowhathedoesinawayworthyofhisprofessionevenifdonewithnoexpectationofreward,This
spiritofpublicserviceinwhichtheprofessionoflawisandoughttobeexercisedisaprerequisiteof
soundadministrationofjusticeaccordingtolaw.Theothertwoelementsofaprofession,namely,
organizationandpursuitofalearnedarthavetheirjustificationinthattheysecureandmaintainthat
spirit.25

Infine,petitioners'desiretopreservetheIdentityoftheirfirmsintheeyesofthepublicmustbowtolegalandethical
impediment.

ACCORDINGLY,thepetitionsfiledhereinaredeniedandpetitionersadvisedtodropthenames"SYCIP"and
"OZAETA"fromtheirrespectivefirmnames.Thosenamesmay,however,beincludedinthelistingofindividuals
whohavebeenpartnersintheirfirmsindicatingtheyearsduringwhichtheyservedassuch.

SOORDERED.

Teehankee,Concepcion,Jr.,Santos,Fernandez,GuerreroandDeCastro,JJ.,concur

Fernando,C.J.andAbadSantos,J.,tooknopart.

SeparateOpinions

FERNANDO,C.J.,concurring:

Thepetitionsaredenied,asthereareonlyfourvotesforgrantingthem,sevenoftheJusticesbeingofthecontrary
view,asexplainedinthepluralityopinionofJusticeAmeurfinaMelencioHerrera.Itisoutofdelicadezathatthe
undersigneddidnotparticipateinthedispositionofthesepetitions,asthelawofficeofSycip,Salazar,Feliciano,
HernandezandCastillostartedwiththepartnershipofQuisumbing,Sycip,andQuisumbing,theseniorpartner,the
lateRamonQuisumbing,beingthefatherinlawoftheundersigned,andthemostjuniorpartnerthen,NorbertoJ.
Quisumbing,beinghisbrotherinlaw.Fortherecord,theundersignedwishestoinvitetheattentionofall
concerned,andnotonlyofpetitioners,tothelastsentenceoftheopinionofJusticeAmeurfinaMelencioHerrera:
'Thosenames[SycipandOzaeta]may,however,beincludedinthelistingofindividualswtes

AQUINO,J.,dissenting:

Idissent.Thefourteenmembersofthelawfirm,Sycip,Salazar,Feliciano,Hernandez&Castillo,intheirpetitionof
June10,1975,prayedforauthoritytocontinuetheuseofthatfirmname,notwithstandingthedeathofAttorney
AlexanderSyciponMay5,1975(Mayherestinpeace).Hewasthefounderofthefirmwhichwasoriginallyknown
astheSycipLawOffice.

Ontheotherhand,thesevensurvivingpartnersofthelawfirm,Ozaeta,Romulo,DeLeon,Mabanta&Reyes,in
theirpetitionofAugust13,1976,prayedthattheybeallowedtocontinueusingthesaidfirmnamenotwithstanding
thedeathoftwopartners,formerJusticeRomanOzaetaandhisson,Herminio,onMay1,1972andFebruary14,
1976,respectively.

TheyallegedthatthesaidlawfirmwasacontinuationoftheOzaetaLawOfficewhichwasestablishedin1957by
JusticeOzaetaandhissonandthat,astothesaidlawfirm,thenameOzaetahasacquiredaninstitutionaland
secondaryconnotation.

Article1840oftheCivilCode,whichspeaksoftheusebythepartnershipofthenameofadeceasedpartneraspart
ofthepartnershipname,iscitedtojustifythepetitions.Alsoinvokedisthecanonthatthecontinuedusebyalaw
firmofthenameofadeceasedpartner,"whenpermissiblebylocalcustom,isnotunethical"aslongas"no
impositionordeceptionispractisedthroughthisuse"(Canon33oftheCanonsofLegalEthics).

Iamoftheopinionthatthepetitionmaybegrantedwiththeconditionthatitbeindicatedintheletterheadsofthe
twofirms(asthecasemaybe)thatAlexanderSycip,formerJusticeOzaetaandHerminioOzaetaaredeadorthe
periodwhentheyservedaspartnersshouldbestatedtherein.

Obviously,thepurposeofthetwofirmsincontinuingtheuseofthenamesoftheirdeceasedfoundersistoretainthe
clientswhohadcustomarilysoughtthelegalservicesofAttorneysSycipandOzaetaandtobenefitfromthe
goodwillattachedtothenamesofthoserespectedandesteemedlawpractitioners.Thatisalegitimatemotivation.

Theretentionoftheirnamesisnotillegalperse.ThatpracticewasfollowedbeforethewarbythelawfirmofJames
Ross.NotwithstandingthedeathofJudgeRossthefounderofthelawfirmofRoss,Lawrence,Selphand
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1979/jul1979/PETITION%20TOCONTINUE%20THE%20USE%20OF%20THE%20NAME%20SYCIP_1979.html 5/7
6/16/2016 July 30, 1979
Carrascoso,hisnamewasretainedinthefirmnamewithanindicationoftheyearwhenhedied.Noone
complainedthattheretentionofthenameofJudgeRossinthefirmnamewasillegalorunethical.

#SeparateOpinions

FERNANDO,C.J.,concurring:

Thepetitionsaredenied,asthereareonlyfourvotesforgrantingthem,sevenoftheJusticesbeingofthecontrary
view,asexplainedinthepluralityopinionofJusticeAmeurfinaMelencioHerrera.Itisoutofdelicadezathatthe
undersigneddidnotparticipateinthedispositionofthesepetitions,asthelawofficeofSycip,Salazar,Feliciano,
HernandezandCastillostartedwiththepartnershipofQuisumbing,Sycip,andQuisumbing,theseniorpartner,the
lateRamonQuisumbing,beingthefatherinlawoftheundersigned,andthemostjuniorpartnerthen,NorbertoJ.
Quisumbing,beinghisbrotherinlaw.Fortherecord,theundersignedwishestoinvitetheattentionofall
concerned,andnotonlyofpetitioners,tothelastsentenceoftheopinionofJusticeAmeurfinaMelencioHerrera:
'Thosenames[SycipandOzaeta]may,however,beincludedinthelistingofindividualswtes

AQUINO,J.,dissenting:

Idissent.Thefourteenmembersofthelawfirm,Sycip,Salazar,Feliciano,Hernandez&Castillo,intheirpetitionof
June10,1975,prayedforauthoritytocontinuetheuseofthatfirmname,notwithstandingthedeathofAttorney
AlexanderSyciponMay5,1975(Mayherestinpeace).Hewasthefounderofthefirmwhichwasoriginallyknown
astheSycipLawOffice.

Ontheotherhand,thesevensurvivingpartnersofthelawfirm,Ozaeta,Romulo,DeLeon,Mabanta&Reyes,in
theirpetitionofAugust13,1976,prayedthattheybeallowedtocontinueusingthesaidfirmnamenotwithstanding
thedeathoftwopartners,formerJusticeRomanOzaetaandhisson,Herminio,onMay1,1972andFebruary14,
1976,respectively.

TheyallegedthatthesaidlawfirmwasacontinuationoftheOzaetaLawOfficewhichwasestablishedin1957by
JusticeOzaetaandhissonandthat,astothesaidlawfirm,thenameOzaetahasacquiredaninstitutionaland
secondaryconnotation.

Article1840oftheCivilCode,whichspeaksoftheusebythepartnershipofthenameofadeceasedpartneraspart
ofthepartnershipname,iscitedtojustifythepetitions.Alsoinvokedisthecanonthatthecontinuedusebyalaw
firmofthenameofadeceasedpartner,"whenpermissiblebylocalcustom,isnotunethical"aslongas"no
impositionordeceptionispractisedthroughthisuse"(Canon33oftheCanonsofLegalEthics).

Iamoftheopinionthatthepetitionmaybegrantedwiththeconditionthatitbeindicatedintheletterheadsofthe
twofirms(asthecasemaybe)thatAlexanderSycip,formerJusticeOzaetaandHerminioOzaetaaredeadorthe
periodwhentheyservedaspartnersshouldbestatedtherein.

Obviously,thepurposeofthetwofirmsincontinuingtheuseofthenamesoftheirdeceasedfoundersistoretainthe
clientswhohadcustomarilysoughtthelegalservicesofAttorneysSycipandOzaetaandtobenefitfromthe
goodwillattachedtothenamesofthoserespectedandesteemedlawpractitioners.Thatisalegitimatemotivation.

Theretentionoftheirnamesisnotillegalperse.ThatpracticewasfollowedbeforethewarbythelawfirmofJames
Ross.NotwithstandingthedeathofJudgeRossthefounderofthelawfirmofRoss,Lawrence,Selphand
Carrascoso,hisnamewasretainedinthefirmnamewithanindicationoftheyearwhenhedied.Noone
complainedthattheretentionofthenameofJudgeRossinthefirmnamewasillegalorunethical.

#Footnotes t.hqw

1SeeMemorandumofSalazar,etal.,p.5:seealsoPetitionofRomulo,etal.,p.3.

2CitingSec,16A,PublicActNo.3105,asamendedbyCommonwealthActNo.342Sec.39,
CommonwealthActNo.294Sec.23,RepublicActNo.318Sec.39,RepublicActNo.184.

3MemorandumofSalazar,etal.,pp.78.

4MemorandumofSalazar,etal.,pp.810PetitionofRomulo,etal.,pp.34.

5MemorandumofSalazar,etal.,p.13PetitionofRomulo,etal.,p.4.

6PetitionofRomulo,etal.,p.4.

7MemorandumofSalazar,etal.,p.11.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1979/jul1979/PETITION%20TOCONTINUE%20THE%20USE%20OF%20THE%20NAME%20SYCIP_1979.html 6/7
6/16/2016 July 30, 1979
8MemorandumofSalazar,etal.,pp.67andpp.1618PetitionofRomulo.etal.,p,5.

9Seddalvs.Keating,8App.Div.2d44,185NYS2d630,affd7NY2d846,196NYS2d986,164NE
2d860.

10Section16A,CommonwealthActNo.342.

11InreCrawford'sEstate,184NE2d779,783.

12H.S.Drinker,LegalEthics(1953),p.206seealsoCanon33,par.2,CanonsofProfessionalEthics.

13H.S,Drinker,LegalEthics(1953)pp.45.

147C.J.S.708.

15AmJur270.

16InreLavine,41P2d161,allcitedinMartin,LegalandJudicialEthics,FifthEd.,p.8.

17Canons1to32whichwereadoptedbytheAmericanBarAssociationin1908werealsoadoptedby
thePhilippineBarAssociationin1917.TheAmericanBarAssociationadoptedCanons33to45in
1928,Canon46in1933andCanon47in1937.OnApril20,1946,whenCanons33to47where
alreadyineffect,theRevisedConstitutionofthePhilippineBarAssociationwasapprovedandit
providedthattheAssociation"adoptsandmakesitsowntheCodeofEthicsoftheAmericanBar
Association."(Martin,LegalandJudicialEthics,FifthEd.p,341).

1833N.Y.S.2d733,734.

19JBLReyes&RCPuno,OutlineofPhilippineCivilLaw.FourthEd.,Vol.I,p.7

20Article12,CivilCode.

21Patriarcavs.Orate,7Phil.390,395(1907).

22Art.8,CivilCode

23Art.1830,CivilCode.

24Art.11,CivilCode.

25RoscoePound,TheLawyerFromAntiquityToModernTimes,(1953),pp.910.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1979/jul1979/PETITION%20TOCONTINUE%20THE%20USE%20OF%20THE%20NAME%20SYCIP_1979.html 7/7