1

G.R. No. 101897. March 5, 1993. LYCEUM OF THE PHILIPPINES vs CA

G.R. No. 101897. March 5, 1993.
LYCEUM OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET. AL., respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner is an educational institution duly registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC"). When it first registered with the SEC on 21
September 1950, it used the corporate name Lyceum of the Philippines, Inc. and
has used that name ever since.
On 24 February 1984, petitioner instituted proceedings before the SEC to
compel the private respondents, which are also educational institutions, to delete
the word "Lyceum" from their corporate names and permanently to enjoin them
from using "Lyceum" as part of their respective names.
Petitioner had sometime before commenced in the SEC a proceeding (SEC-Case
No. 1241) against the Lyceum of Baguio, Inc. to require it to change its
corporate name and to adopt another name not "similar [to] or identical" with
that of petitioner. In an Order dated 20 April 1977, Associate Commissioner
Julio Sulit held that the corporate name of petitioner and that of the Lyceum of
Baguio, Inc. were substantially identical because of the presence of a
"dominant" word, i.e., "Lyceum," the name of the geographical location of the
campus being the only word which distinguished one from the other corporate
name. The SEC also noted that petitioner had registered as a corporation ahead
of the Lyceum of Baguio, Inc. in point of time, 1 and ordered the latter to
change its name to another name "not similar or identical [with]" the names of
previously registered entities.
The Lyceum of Baguio, Inc. assailed the Order of the SEC before the Supreme
Court in a case docketed as G.R. No. L-46595. In a Minute Resolution dated 14
September 1977, the Court denied the Petition for Review for lack of merit.
Entry of judgment in that case was made on 21 October 1977.

With the Resolution of the Court in G.R. No. L-46595, petitioner then wrote all
the educational institutions it could find using the word "Lyceum" as part of
their corporate name, and advised them to discontinue such use of "Lyceum."
When, with the passage of time, it became clear that this recourse had failed,
petitioner instituted before the SEC SEC-Case No. 2579 to enforce what
petitioner claims as its proprietary right to the word "Lyceum." The SEC hearing
officer rendered a decision sustaining petitioner's claim to an exclusive right to
use the word "Lyceum." The hearing officer relied upon the SEC ruling in the
Lyceum of Baguio, Inc. case (SEC-Case No. 1241) and held that the word
"Lyceum" was capable of appropriation and that petitioner had acquired an
enforceable exclusive right to the use of that word.
On appeal, however, by private respondents to the SEC En Banc, the decision of
the hearing officer was reversed and set aside. The SEC En Banc did not
consider the word "Lyceum" to have become so identified with petitioner as to
render use thereof by other institutions as productive of confusion about the
identity of the schools concerned in the mind of the general public. Unlike its
hearing officer, the SEC En Banc held that the attaching of geographical names
to the word "Lyceum" served sufficiently to distinguish the schools from one
another, especially in view of the fact that the campuses of petitioner and those
of the private respondents were physically quite remote from each other.
Petitioner then went on appeal to the Court of Appeals. In its Decision dated 28
June 1991, however, the Court of Appeals affirmed the questioned Orders of the
SEC En Banc. 4 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE:
1. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the word Lyceum has not acquired
a secondary meaning in favor of petitioner.
RULING:
"SECTION 18. Corporate name. 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." (Emphasis supplied)
The policy underlying the prohibition in Section 18 against the registration of a
corporate name which is "identical or deceptively or confusingly similar" to that
of any existing corporation or which is "patently deceptive" or "patently
confusing" or "contrary to existing laws," is the avoidance of fraud upon the
public which would have occasion to deal with the entity concerned, the evasion
of legal obligations and duties, and the reduction of difficulties of administration
and supervision over corporations.
Under the doctrine of secondary meaning, a word or phrase originally incapable
of exclusive appropriation with reference to an article in the market, because
geographical or otherwise descriptive might nevertheless have been used so
long and so exclusively by one producer with reference to this article that, in
that trade and to that group of the purchasing public, the word or phrase has
come to mean that the article was his produce (Ana Ang vs. Toribio Teodoro, 74
Phil. 56). This circumstance has been referred to as the distinctiveness into
which the name or phrase has evolved through the substantial and exclusive use
of the same for a considerable period of time. Consequently, the same doctrine
or principle cannot be made to apply where the evidence did not prove that the
business (of the plaintiff) has continued for so long a time that it has become of
consequence and acquired a good will of considerable value such that its articles
and produce have acquired a well-known reputation, and confusion will result
by the use of the disputed name (by the defendant) .
We conclude and so hold that petitioner institution is not entitled to a legally
enforceable exclusive right to use the word "Lyceum" in its corporate name and
that other institutions may use "Lyceum" as part of their corporate names. To
determine whether a given corporate name is "identical" or "confusingly or
deceptively similar" with another entity's corporate name, it is not enough to
ascertain the presence of "Lyceum" or "Liceo" in both names. One must
evaluate corporate names in their entirety and when the name of petitioner is
juxtaposed with the names of private respondents, they are not reasonably
regarded as "identical" or "confusingly or deceptively similar" with each other.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed and the petition for review is
DENIED for lack of merit.