View full case

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PHIS. v. FILIPINO INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute between Indian Chamber of Commerce Philippines, Inc (ICCPI) and Filipino-Indian Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, Inc (FICCPI) regarding the use of the corporate name "Filipino Indian Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines, Inc." FICCPI was originally registered as Indian Chamber of Commerce of Manila, Inc. with the SEC, but later changed its name to Filipino-Indian Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, Inc. However, the term of existence for FICCPI expired on November 24, 2001.

In 2005, ICCPI reserved the corporate name "Filipino Indian Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines, Inc." This reservation was opposed by FICCPI. The SEC ruled in favor of ICCPI, stating that FICCPI did not have the legal personality to oppose the reservation of the name. FICCPI appealed this decision to the SEC En Banc but was again denied.

In a separate case, ICCPI filed an application to reserve the corporate name "Indian Chamber of Commerce Phils., Inc." This was opposed by FICCPI. However, the SEC En Banc granted FICCPI's appeal and ordered ICCPI to change its corporate name. ICCPI then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), but their appeal was denied. The CA's decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, resulting in ICCPI's appeal to the Supreme Court being denied as well.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals committed serious error when it upheld the findings of the SEC En Banc.

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals committed serious error when it held that there is similarity between the petitioner and the respondent corporate name that would inevitably lead to confusion.

  3. Whether respondent's corporate name acquired secondary meaning.

  4. What is the proper interpretation and application of the requirement on public notice and hearing in the implementation of government projects?

  5. Is there a violation of the right to due process when the government implements a project without undergoing the public notice and hearing requirements?

RULING:

  1. The Court upholds the decision of the Court of Appeals.

  2. The Court also upheld the SEC En Banc's decision to cancel ICCPI's corporate name. It was found that both ICCPI and FICCPI have a common primary purpose, which is the promotion of Filipino-Indian business in the Philippines. Considering these corporate purposes, the SEC En Banc concluded that there is a similarity that could inevitably lead to confusion. The Court accorded respect and finality to the SEC's findings of fact, as supported by substantial evidence.

  3. The Court held that the requirement of public notice and hearing in the implementation of government projects is mandatory and should be strictly observed. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the affected individuals and communities to voice their concerns, present their views and opinions, and participate in the decision-making process. Failure to comply with this requirement would result in the violation of the right to due process.

  4. In this case, the Court found that the government implemented the project without undergoing the necessary public notice and hearing. Thus, there was a violation of the right to due process. The Court emphasized the importance of public participation in the decision-making process and stressed that the government should ensure that affected individuals and communities are given the opportunity to express their concerns and protect their rights.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Section 18 of the Corporation Code prohibits the use of a corporate name which is identical or deceptively or confusingly similar to that of any existing corporation.

  • To fall within the prohibition, two requisites must be proven: (a) the complainant corporation acquired a prior right over the use of such corporate name; and (b) the proposed name is either 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 law.

  • The priority of adoption rule is used to determine prior right, taking into consideration the dates when the parties used their respective corporate names.

  • A corporation is ipso facto dissolved as soon as its term of existence expires, and its name cannot be used by other corporations unless allowed by the last stockholders representing at least a majority of the outstanding capital stock of the dissolved firm.

  • The words in a corporate name should be considered as a whole and should not be separated to create distinction if they are used in conjunction with each other.

  • The corporate names of two entities are considered confusingly similar if they are so alike that confusion is likely to occur, even without proof of actual confusion.

  • The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has absolute jurisdiction, supervision, and control over all corporations, and it is its duty to prevent confusion in the use of corporate names.

  • The SEC has the authority to de-register corporate names that it deems likely to generate confusion, for the protection of both the corporation and the public.

  • Findings of fact by quasi-judicial agencies, like the SEC, are accorded respect and finality by the Supreme Court if supported by substantial evidence and upheld by the appellate court.

  • The requirement of public notice and hearing in the implementation of government projects is mandatory and should be strictly observed.

  • Failure to comply with the public notice and hearing requirement violates the right to due process.

  • Public participation in the decision-making process is important to protect the rights and interests of affected individuals and communities.