A.M. No. 2131. May 10, 1985. ADRIANO E. DACANAY, complainant, vs. BAKER & MCKENZIE and JUAN G. COLLAS, JR., et al., respondents.
FACTS

Complainant lawyer Adriano E. Dacanay filed a verified complaint in 1980 seeking to enjoin respondents Juan G. Collas, Jr. and nine other lawyers from practicing law under the name “Baker & McKenzie.” The complaint arose from a letter dated November 16, 1979, sent by respondent Vicente A. Torres to Rosie Clurman. This letter, written on a “Baker & McKenzie” letterhead listing the ten respondent lawyers, made a demand on behalf of a client. Dacanay, replying for Clurman, questioned the authority behind the demand and specifically asked whether the client’s lawyer was Baker & McKenzie, and if not, the purpose for using another law office’s letterhead. Having received no satisfactory reply to his query, Dacanay initiated the present administrative case against the respondents.
The respondents, all members of the Philippine Bar practicing under the local firm name “Guerrero & Torres,” admitted in their memorandum that they were also members or associates of Baker & McKenzie. They confirmed that Baker & McKenzie is a professional partnership originally organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois, with a global network of members and associates. Their use of the Baker & McKenzie firm name was presented as part of their practice.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents, all Filipino lawyers, are ethically permitted to practice law in the Philippines under the firm name “Baker & McKenzie,” a foreign law partnership.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled against the respondents and enjoined them from practicing under the name “Baker & McKenzie.” The legal logic is anchored on the explicit prohibition against the practice of law by aliens or foreign entities in the Philippines, as provided under Section 1, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The Court found that Baker & McKenzie, being a professional partnership organized under the laws of Illinois, USA, is an alien law firm. As such, it possesses no legal personality and is absolutely unauthorized to practice law within Philippine jurisdiction.
The respondents’ use of the firm name constituted an implicit representation of an association with this foreign entity, suggesting an ability to render legal services of a particular international caliber, as even noted in their own memorandum. This practice is unethical because it effectively allows an unauthorized foreign firm to engage in the practice of law through its local associates, circumventing the statutory bar. The Court, citing ethical authorities, emphasized that such a setup misleads the public and undermines the regulation of the legal profession, which is reserved exclusively for Filipino citizens duly admitted to the bar. The local practice of the respondents must therefore be conducted strictly under their authorized Philippine firm name, without reference to the unauthorized foreign partnership.