2.

In Re: Sycip

PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE USE OF THE FIRM NAME "SYCIP, SALAZAR,
FELICIANO, HERNANDEZ & CASTILLO" and IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE USE OF THE FIRM NAME "OZAETA, ROMULO, DE LEON,
MABANTA & REYES."
Melencio-Herrera

FACTS:
Two firms ask that they be allowed to continue using the names of their firms despite the
fact that Attys. Sycip and Ozaeta died.

Petitioners argue that:

1. Under the law, a partnership is not prohibited from continuing its business under a
firm name that includes the name of a deceased partner. NCC 1840 explicitly
sanctions the practice.
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.
2. In regulating other professions (accountancy and engineering), the legislature has
authorized the adoption of firm names without any restriction as to the use
of the name of a deceased partner. There is no fundamental policy that is
offended by the continued use by a firm of professionals of a firm name, which
includes the name of a deceased partner, at least where such firm name has
acquired the characteristics of a "trade name."
3. The Canons of Professional Ethics are not transgressed by the continued use
of the name of a deceased partner because Canon 33 of the Canons of Professional
Ethics adopted by the American Bar Association declares that:
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.
4. There is no possibility of imposition or deception because the deaths of their
respective deceased partners were well-publicized in all newspapers of general
circulation for several days. The stationeries now being used by them carry new

letterheads indicating the years when their respective deceased partners were
connected with the firm. Petitioners will notify all leading national and
international law directories of the fact of their deceased partners' deaths.
5. No local custom prohibits the continued use of a deceased partner's name in a
professional firm's name. There is no Philippine custom or usage that recognizes
that the name of a law firm identifies the firms individual members.
6. 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.

ISSUE: WON the continued use of the deceased partners names will run counter the
personal relation between attorney and client.

HELD:
YES. Petitioners advised to drop the names SYCIP and OZAETA from their respective
firm names.

A partnership for the practice of law cannot be likened to partnerships

formed by other professionals or for business.
A partnership for the practice of law is not a legal entity. It is a mere relationship or
association for a particular purpose. It is not a partnership formed to carry on trade or
business or of holding property. The use of a nom de plume, assumed or trade name in law
practice is improper.

Primary characteristics, which distinguish the legal profession from business

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

The right to practice law does not only presuppose in its possessor integrity, legal standing
and attainment, but also the exercise of a special privilege, highly personal and
partaking of the nature of a public trust.

Canon 34 of the Canons of Professional Ethics prohibits an agreement for the

payment to the widow and heirs of a deceased lawyer of a percentage, either gross or net,
of the fees received from the future business of the deceased lawyer's clients, both because
the recipients of such division are not lawyers and because such payments will not
represent service or responsibility on the part of the recipient.

Neither the widow nor the heirs can be held liable for transactions entered into after
the death of their lawyer-predecessor. There being no benefits accruing, there can be no
corresponding liability.

In view of the personal and confidential nature of the relations between attorney and
client, and the high standards demanded in the canons of professional ethics, no practice
should be allowed which even in a remote degree could give rise to the possibility
of deception in view of the personal and confidential nature of the relations
between attorney and client, and the high standards demanded in the canons of professional
ethics, no practice should be allowed which even in a remote degree could give
rise to the possibility of deception.

Petitions DENIED

CONCURRENCE OF J. FERNANDO
It is out of delicadeza that the undersigned did not participate in the disposition of these
petitions. Sycip Salazar started with partnership of Quisumbing, Sycip, and Quisumbing, the
senior partner, the late Ramon Quisumbing, being the father-in-law of the undersigned, and
the most junior partner then, Norberto J. Quisumbing, being his brother- in-law.

DISSENT OF J. AQUINO
The petition may be granted with the condition that it be indicated in the letterheads of the
two firms (as the case may be) that A. Sycip, former J. Ozaeta and H. Ozaeta are dead or the
period when they served as partners should be stated therein.

The purpose of the two firms in continuing the use of the names of their deceased
founders is to retain the clients who had customarily sought the legal services of Attys.
Sycip and Ozaeta and to benefit from the goodwill attached to the names of those respected
and esteemed law practitioners. That is a legitimate motivation. The retention of their
names is not illegal per se.