Case Digest: Dacanay vs Baker and McKenzie, 136 SCRA 349

Dacanay vs Baker and McKenzie 136 SCRA 349

Subject: Basic Legal Ethics

FACTS

Atty. Adriano E. Dacanay, in his verified complaint, sought to enjoin Juan G. Collas, Jr. and nine other lawyers from practicing law under the name of Baker & McKenzie, a law firm organized in Illinois. Respondents are members of the Philippine bar practicing under the firm name of Guerrero & Torres. They are likewise members or associates of Baker & McKenzie.

Vicente A. Torres, one of the respondents, made a letter using the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie. The letter, which contains the names of ten lawyers, asked Rosie Clurman for the release of 87 shares of Cathay Products International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client of the respondents.

Atty. Dacanay denied any liability of Clurman to Gabriel. He requested that he be informed whether the lawyer of Gabriel is Baker & McKenzie and the purpose of using the said letterhead. Not having received any reply, he filed the instant complaint.

ISSUE

Whether or not the respondents are enjoined from practicing law under the firm name Baker & McKenzie.

RULING

Yes, Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines.

Under Canon 3, Rule 3.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility - In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name shall be used. The continued use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its communications that said partner is deceased.

In this case, SC held that Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court). As admitted by the respondents in their memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a professional partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois with members and associates in 30 cities around the world. Respondents, aside from being members of the Philippine bar, practicing under the firm name of Guerrero & Torres, are members or associates of Baker & McKenzie. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents' use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a representation that being associated with the firm they could "render legal services of the highest quality to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment". This is unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practice law here. Therefore, the respondents are enjoined from practicing law under the firm name Baker & McKenzie.