G.R. No. L-35774 & L-35781. July 30, 1979.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE USE OF THE FIRM NAME “SYCIP, SALAZAR, FELICIANO, HERNANDEZ & CASTILLO.” LUCIANO E. SALAZAR, ET AL., petitioners. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE USE OF THE FIRM NAME “OZAETA, ROMULO, DE LEON, MABANTA & REYES.” RICARDO J. ROMULO, ET AL., petitioners.

FACTS

Two separate petitions were filed by the surviving partners of the law firms “Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez & Castillo” and “Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon, Mabanta & Reyes.” They sought authority to continue using their respective firm names, which include the names of deceased founding partners Alexander Sycip and Herminio Ozaeta. The petitioners argued that the practice is legally permissible under Article 1840 of the Civil Code, is an accepted custom under Canon 33 of Professional Ethics, and poses no deception as the deaths were well-publicized and new letterheads indicate the years the deceased were connected with the firm. They cited consistent allowance of the practice in other jurisdictions and professions.
The issue was not novel. In 1953, the Court advised a Cebu firm to desist from using a deceased partner’s name. In 1958, in an incident concerning the firm “Perkins & Ponce Enrile,” the Court reaffirmed this policy, requiring the removal of the deceased Perkins’s name, citing the need to avoid any possibility of deception in the confidential attorney-client relationship.

ISSUE

Whether a law partnership may be authorized to continue using the name of a deceased partner in its firm name.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petitions, refusing to depart from its established policy. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of a partnership and the specific demands of the legal profession. The Court first addressed the Civil Code provisions. While petitioners relied on Article 1840, which states that using a deceased partner’s name does not automatically make his estate liable for new debts, the Court found Article 1815 more controlling. This article provides that a partnership operates under a firm name that “may or may not include the name of one or more of the partners” and that non-partners who include their names are subject to partner liability.
The Court interpreted Article 1815 to imply that names in a firm name must be those of living partners or, in the case of non-partners, living persons who can be held liable. Including a deceased partner’s name contravenes this principle because a deceased person cannot be subjected to the liability of a partner. This legal technicality is compounded by the ethical considerations unique to law practice. The attorney-client relationship is personal and confidential, demanding the highest ethical standards. Allowing a firm name to suggest the continued association of a deceased lawyer, even remotely, creates a possibility of deception or misunderstanding for the public and clients, regardless of disclaimers on letterheads. The Court prioritized the prevention of any potential misrepresentation over the firm’s interest in preserving goodwill and institutional identity, thereby upholding the integrity of the legal profession.