FACTS:
The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Industrial Refractories Corp. of the Philippines (IRCP) assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals that denied due course and dismissed their petition. Respondent Refractories Corporation of the Philippines (RCP) is a corporation engaged in the manufacturing and selling of refractory bricks. On the other hand, petitioner IRCP is engaged in the business of manufacturing ceramics and other products. Both companies are the only local suppliers of monolithic gunning mix. RCP discovered that IRCP was using a corporate name that is confusingly similar to theirs and filed a petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to compel IRCP to change its corporate name. The SEC ruled in favor of RCP and ordered IRCP to amend its Articles of Incorporation by deleting the name 'Refractories Corporation of the Philippines' from its corporate name. IRCP appealed to the SEC En Banc, arguing that the SEC does not have jurisdiction over the case and that RCP has no right to the exclusive use of its corporate name. The SEC En Banc modified the decision and ordered IRCP to delete only the word 'Refractories' from its corporate name. IRCP then appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the jurisdiction of the SEC and ruled that the corporate names of IRCP and RCP are confusingly similar. IRCP filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, which is the subject of this case.
ISSUES:
-
Whether the petition before the Court of Appeals was timely filed.
-
Whether the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has jurisdiction over the case.
-
Whether respondent RCP has the exclusive right to use the word "Refractories" as its corporate name.
RULING:
-
The petitioner failed to rebut respondent RCP's allegations of material dates of receipt and filing. The certifications issued by the SEC officials, which were based on their official records, serve as prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. If reckoned from the dates provided by respondent RCP, the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period. Consequently, the SEC En Banc's decision had already attained finality.
-
The appellate court upheld the jurisdiction of the SEC over the case. The SEC has jurisdiction since the case involves a petition for the amendment or deletion of a corporate name, which falls within the scope of its authority.
-
The appellate court ruled that the corporate names of petitioner IRCP and respondent RCP are confusingly or deceptively similar. Furthermore, respondent RCP has established its prior right to use the word "Refractories" as its corporate name.
PRINCIPLES:
-
In filing a petition for review before the Court of Appeals from a decision of a quasi-judicial agency, the remedy should be filed within the reglementary period provided by the governing rule, which suspends the running of the period if a motion for reconsideration is filed.
-
Certifications issued by SEC officials based on their official records enjoy the presumption of regularity and serve as prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.
-
The SEC has jurisdiction over cases involving petitions for the amendment or deletion of a corporate name.
-
Corporate names may be considered confusingly or deceptively similar if they give rise to a likelihood of confusion or mistake among the public, leading them to believe that the corporations are one and the same. The prior right to the use of a particular word in a corporate name can be established through actual use or registration with the proper government agency.