Case Digest (G.R. No. 205548)
Facts:
De La Salle Montessori International of Malolos, Inc. v. De La Salle Brothers, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 205548, February 07, 2018, Supreme Court First Division, Jardeleza, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner De La Salle Montessori International of Malolos, Inc. reserved the corporate name "De La Salle Montessori International Malolos, Inc." from June 4 to August 3, 2007, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) subsequently indorsed its articles of incorporation and by‑laws to the Department of Education (DepEd), which returned the indorsement without objection; a certificate of incorporation was later issued to petitioner (registration reflected as July 5, 2007). DepEd Region III granted government recognition for petitioner’s pre‑elementary and elementary courses on June 30, 2008, and for secondary courses on February 15, 2010.On January 29, 2010, respondents — De La Salle Brothers, Inc., De La Salle University, Inc., La Salle Academy, Inc., De La Salle‑Santiago Zobel School, Inc., and De La Salle Canlubang, Inc. — filed a petition with the SEC to compel petitioner to change its corporate name, alleging that petitioner’s use of the dominant phrases “La Salle” and “De La Salle” was confusingly similar to respondents’ prior corporate names and likely to mislead the public, contrary to Section 18 of the Corporation Code.
The SEC Office of the General Counsel (OGC) issued an Order dated May 12, 2010 directing petitioner to change or modify its corporate name, finding that respondents had priority of adoption and that “De La Salle/La Salle” is suggestive/fanciful (and thus protectable) rather than generic or descriptive, and that confusion was probable given the similarity of names and identical educational business. The SEC En Banc affirmed the OGC Order in a Decision dated September 30, 2010. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which, in CA‑G.R. SP No. 116439, rendered a Decision dated September 27, 2012 affirming the SEC in toto and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on January 21, 2013.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court, contending that the CA erred in not applying the doctrine of Lyceum of the Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (w...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Must the Court treat petitioner’s mislabeling of its remedy as grave abuse of discretion (Rule 65) as fatal, or may it excuse the terminology and proceed under Rule 45?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in refusing to apply the ruling in Lyceum of the Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and in affirming the SEC’s directive that petitioner change its corporate name because “De La Salle” is confusingly ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)