Case Digest (G.R. No. 205548) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In De La Salle Montessori International of Malolos, Inc. (hereinafter petitioner), organized and duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on July 5, 2007 under Company Registration No. CN200710647, reserved its corporate name from June 4 to August 3, 2007 and thereafter secured DepEd recognition for its pre-elementary and elementary courses on June 30, 2008 and for its secondary courses on February 15, 2010. On January 29, 2010, respondents De La Salle Brothers, Inc. (incorporated October 9, 1961), De La Salle University, Inc. (December 19, 1975), La Salle Academy, Inc. (January 26, 1960), De La Salle-Santiago Zobel School, Inc. (October 7, 1976), and De La Salle Canlubang, Inc. (August 5, 1998) filed a petition with the SEC seeking to compel petitioner to change its name on the ground that the phrases “De La Salle” and “La Salle” were confusingly similar to respondents’ prior-adopted corporate names and that respondents had not consented to such use. Th Case Digest (G.R. No. 205548) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Procedural Background
- Petitioner De La Salle Montessori International of Malolos, Inc. (DLSMIM) filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to challenge:
- The Court of Appeals (CA) Decision of September 27, 2012 in CA-G.R. SP No. 116439.
- The CA Resolution of January 21, 2013 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- Respondents are 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.
- Underlying Corporate Name Dispute
- On June 4, 2007, petitioner reserved the name “De La Salle Montessori International Malolos, Inc.”; after DepEd expressed no objection, the SEC issued its certificate of incorporation. Petitioner obtained DepEd recognition for pre-elementary and elementary courses on June 30, 2008, and for secondary courses on February 15, 2010.
- On January 29, 2010, respondents petitioned the SEC to compel a name change, alleging confusing similarity and lack of consent, invoking Section 18 of the Corporation Code. The SEC Office of the General Counsel (OGC) on May 12, 2010 directed petitioner to change its name, which the SEC En Banc affirmed on September 30, 2010. The CA likewise affirmed the SEC decisions in toto.
Issues:
- Error of Judgment Alleged
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not applying the doctrine of Lyceum of the Philippines (that a generic or descriptive term is not exclusively appropriable) to hold that “De La Salle” is not entitled to exclusivity.
- Whether respondents have acquired a prior right to the exclusive use of the phrase “De La Salle” and whether petitioner’s use is confusingly similar under Section 18 of the Corporation Code.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)