In The Matter of the Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name “Sycip Salazar,

etc."/ "Ozaeta, Romulo, etc.", 92 SCRA 1, July 30, 1979

Melencio-Herrera, J.

Facts: The surviving partners 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.

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 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