ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
BAR REVIEWER ON LABOR LAW 2014 (2nd) Edition - By Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan


Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 











UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE




 
 



chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

 

[G.R. No. 139542. June 10, 2003]

PEOPLE vs. GONZALEZ, JR.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 10 2003.

G.R. No. 139542(People Of The Philippines vs. Inocencio Gonzalez, Jr.)

This refers to the Motion filed by Pastelero Law office seeking to clarify whether the firm of Velasquez, Rodriguez, Respicio, Ramos, Nidea, and Prado, counsel for the private complainant-appellee, may call itself "A law Firm Of St. Thomas More and Associate Members".

In the Motion for Clarification, movant asks: "[I]f lawyers and law firms are allowed to call themselves the law firm of St. Thomas More, what will prevent other lawyers and law firms from claiming they are the law firm of St. Josemaria Escriva who was also a lawyer and recently canonized, or the law firm of St. Peter and Paul, or even the law firm of Jesus Christ himself[?]"

Directed to comment, the Office of the Bar Confidant ("OBC") invokes, Rule 3.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that "in .the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name shall be used."

We agree with the OBC. Rule 3.02 is clear. No name not belonging to any of the partners or associates may be used in the firm name for any purpose. In one case[1]cralaw, we have ruled that the use of the firm name of a foreign law firm is unethical because that firm is not authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction. In this case, "The Law Firm of St. Thomas More and Associate Members" is not a law firm in this jurisdiction or even in any other jurisdiction. A "St. Thomas More and Associates" or STMA is in fact the socio-political ministry or the couples for Christ, a Christian family-renewal community.[2]cralaw

As pointed out by the OBC:

To appellate to the name of the lawyers "The Law Firm of St. Thomas More and Associate Members" indeed appears misleading. It implies that St. Thomas More is a Law Firm when in fact it is not it would also convey to the public the impression that the lawyers are members of the law firm which does not exist. To the public, it would seem that the purpose or intention of adding "The Law Firm of St. Thomas More and Associates Members" is to bask in the name of a Saint, although that may not really, be the purpose or intention of the lawyers. The appellation only tends to confuse the public and in a way demean both the saints and the legal profession whose members must depend on their own name and record and merit and not on the name/glory of other persons living or dead.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the law firm of Velasquez, Rodriguez, Respicio, Ramos, Nidea, and Prado is enjoined from using the appellation "A Law Firm of St. Thomas More and Associate Members" in any pleading filed before judicial and quasi-judicial bodies as well as in its professional transactions.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court



Endnotes:

[1]cralaw Dacanay v. Baker & Mckenzie, Adm. Case No. 2131 10 May 1985 136 SCRA 349.

[2]cralaw Rollo, p. 539.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 

 



 
  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED