LOPEZ, KIMBERLY O.

CORPORATION LAW: JD3B

66. De La Salle Montessori International of Malolos, Inc v De La Salle Brothers, Inc.,

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

DOCTRINE: No corporate name may be allowed by the SEC 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

FACTS:
1. Petitioner reserved with the SEC its corporate name De La Salle Montessori International
Malolos, Inc. from June 4 to August 3, 2007 which was approved by DepEd. SEC
subsequently issued a certificate of incorporation to petitioner. Afterwards, DepEd granted
petitioner government recognition for its pre-elementary and elementary courses.
2. On January 29, 2010, respondents filed a petition with the SEC seeking to compel petitioner
to change its corporate name claiming 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 which violates Section 18 of the
Corporation Code of the Philippines.
3. SEC OGC held 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 and ordered petitioners to change its
corporate name.
4. Petitioners appealed invoking the decision in Lyceum case where it was held that Lyceum
cannot be used with exclusivity because of its being generic and descriptive of the very
purpose of the corporation. Hence CA denied their appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether the term “La Salle” is a generic and cannot be used with exclusivity, hence there is
no violation of Sec. 18 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines was committed by the petitioner

HELD: 
No, the term “La Salle” is not a generic hence it can be used with exclusivity.

First, La Salle is not descriptive of respondent's business as institutes of learning, unlike in

the case of Lyceum as invoked by petitioners where Lyceum pertained generally to a school or
institution of learning which can be used by anyone.

Second, the law provides that no corporate name may be allowed by the SEC 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.

In this case, there was a clear violation of Sec. 18 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines.
Respondent’s name was registered as early as 1961 while that of the petitioner was registered only
on 2007. Clearly, the respondent have acquired a prior right over the “De La Salle” corporate name.
Moreover, the use of the phrases "De La Salle," can reasonably mislead a person using ordinary care
and discretion into thinking that petitioner is an affiliate or a branch of, or is likewise founded by,
any or all of the respondents, thereby causing confusion simply because the term is not a generic
one as it does not particularly refer to the basic or inherent nature of the services provided by
respondents.
 Thus, to use the name La Salle regardless of insertion of Montessori International of Malolos
is patently deceptive, confusing or contrary to existing laws.