Scribd
Upload
45 views2 pages

de La Salle Montessori VD de La Salle Brothers

Uploaded by

Adrian Estember
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
45 views2 pages

de La Salle Montessori VD de La Salle Brothers

Uploaded by

Adrian Estember
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

DE LA SALLE MONTESSORI, VS.

DE LA SALLE BROTHERS,

G.R. No. 205548. February 07, 2018 ]

JARDELEZA, J.:

Facts:
Respondents De La Salle Brothers, Inc., et al filed a petition with the SEC seeking to
compel petitioner De La Salle Montessori International of Malolos, Inc. to change its
corporate name. They claimed that petitioner's corporate name is misleading or
confusingly similar to that which respondents have acquired a prior right to use, and that
respondents' consent to use such name was not obtained. According to respondents,
petitioner's use of the dominant phrases "La Salle" and "De La Salle" gives an erroneous
impression that it is part of the "La Salle" group, which violates Section 18 of the
Corporation Code of the Philippines.
the SEC OGC issued an Order directing petitioner to change or modify its corporate
name. It held, among others, that respondents have acquired the right to the exclusive
use of the name "La Salle" with freedom from infringement by priority of adoption, as
they have all been incorporated using the name ahead of petitioner. Furthermore, the
name "La Salle" is not generic in that it does not particularly refer to the basic or
inherent nature of the services provided by respondents.
Petitioner filed an appeal before the SEC En Banc but the latter only affirmed the Order
of the SEC OGC.
Petitioner consequently filed a petition for review with the CA. the CA likewise affirmed
the Order of the SEC OGC and the Decision of the SEC En Banc in toto.
Hence, this petition.
Issue:
"[w]hether or not the [CA] acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in
excess of jurisdiction when it denied due course to the petition.

Ruling:
No, the CA did not acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of
jurisdiction.
the Court declared that a corporation's right to use its corporate and trade name is a
property right, a right in rem, which it may assert and protect against the world in the
same manner as it may protect its tangible property, real or personal, against trespass
or conversion. It is regarded, to a certain extent, as a property right and one which
cannot be impaired or defeated by subsequent appropriation by another corporation in
the same field.

The Corporation Code established a restrictive rule insofar as corporate names are
concerned. Section 18 thereof provides that “No corporate name may be allowed by the
Securities and Exchange Commission if the proposed name is identical or deceptively or
confusingly similar to that of any existing corporation or to any other name already
protected by law or is patently deceptive, confusing or contrary to existing laws. When a
change in the corporate name is approved, the Commission shall issue an amended
certificate of incorporation under the amended name.”

the Court held that to fall within the prohibition of Section 18, two requisites must be
proven, to wit: (1) that the complainant corporation acquired a prior right over the use of
such corporate name; and (2) the proposed name is either: (a) identical, or (b)
deceptively or confusingly similar to that of any existing corporation or to any other
name already protected by law; or (c) patently deceptive, confusing or contrary to
existing law.
Here, The Court finds the act of the petitioner contrary to law. Thus, it denied the
petition and uphold the Decision of the CA.

You might also like