Case Summary (G.R. No. 205548)
Key Dates and Procedural History
· June 4–Aug 3, 2007: Petitioner reserves and secures SEC incorporation.
· June 30, 2008 & Feb 15, 2010: DepEd recognition of petitioner’s programs.
· Jan 29, 2010: Respondents file SEC petition to compel name change.
· May 12, 2010: SEC Office of General Counsel orders petitioner to modify name.
· Sept 30, 2010: SEC En Banc affirms.
· Sept 27, 2012: Court of Appeals (CA) affirms SEC decisions.
· Feb 7, 2018: Supreme Court denies petitioner’s Rule 45 review.
Applicable Law
· 1987 Philippine Constitution.
· Corporation Code, Sec. 18—prohibits registration of corporate names identical or confusingly similar to existing or protected names.
· Precedents on trade and corporate name rights: Western Equipment & Supply Co. v. Reyes; Philips Export B.V. v. Court of Appeals.
· Doctrine of priority of adoption and test for confusing similarity.
Priority of Adoption and Property Right in Corporate Names
· Corporate names are property rights (right in rem) protected against later users.
· Respondents’ corporate names predate petitioner’s 2007 registration by decades, establishing prior exclusive right to “La Salle” and “De La Salle.”
Confusing Similarity Analysis
· Test: Would an ordinary-care observer likely be misled?
· Dominant element “De La Salle” is shared; additional words “Montessori International of Malolos” insufficient to dispel impression of affiliation.
· Both parties operate in the same educational sector.
· Actual confusion need not be proven; likelihood suffices.
Generic versus Suggestive Character
· Generic marks (e.g., “lyceum”) describe a class of service and cannot be exclusively appropriated.
· “De La Salle” is suggestive—requires imagination to link “the room” (French origin) to a specific educational brand.
· Suggestive marks are inherently distinctive and entitled to protection.
Inapplicability of Lyceum Doctrine
· Lyceum decision held “lyceum” generic; petitioner argued parallel reasoning—but “De La Salle” is not generic.
· Respondents demonstrated secondary meaning and exclusive association of “La Salle” with their institutions decades prior to petitioner’s use.
Deference to SEC Findings
· SEC
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 205548)
Facts
- Petitioner reserved the corporate name “De La Salle Montessori International Malolos, Inc.” from June 4 to August 3, 2007; articles of incorporation and by-laws endorsed to DepEd without objection and certificate of incorporation issued.
- DepEd Region III granted government recognition for pre-elementary and elementary courses on June 30, 2008, and for secondary courses on February 15, 2010.
- On January 29, 2010, respondents (a group of “De La Salle” schools and entities) filed with the SEC a petition to compel petitioner to change its corporate name, alleging confusing similarity and prior right in the phrase “La Salle” or “De La Salle.”
- SEC Office of the General Counsel issued an Order on May 12, 2010 directing petitioner to modify its name, finding respondents’ prior registrations conferred exclusive rights and that “La Salle” is arbitrary, fanciful and distinctive (not generic or descriptive).
- Petitioner appealed to the SEC En Banc, which on September 30, 2010 affirmed the OGC Order, distinguishing the Lyceum doctrine on grounds that “De La Salle” is not a common descriptive term.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 116439 affirmed the SEC decisions on September 27, 2012; its resolution denying reconsideration issued January 21, 2013.
- Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the CA’s refusal to apply Lyceum of the Philippines, Inc. v. CA (1993).
Procedural History
- June 4–August 3, 2007: Name reservation and SEC endorsement to DepEd.
- June 30