Church of God In Christ Jesus vs. Ang Tunay na Iglesia ng Dios kay Kristo Jesus, et al.

[SEC-SICD * CASE NO. 2023. September 13, 1990.] CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST JESUS also known as IGLESIA DE DIOS EN CRISTO JESUS or IGLESIA NG DIOS KAY KRISTO JESUS , petitioner , vs .ANG TUNAY NA IGLESIA NG DIOS KAY KRISTO JESUS, ET AL. , respondents . D E C I S I O N This is a petition brought by Church of God in Christ Jesus also known as Iglesia De Dios En Cristo Jesus or Iglesia Ng Dios Kay Cristo Hesus to direct respondent corporations to change their names and to desist from using petitioner's name. Petitioner alleges, among others, that it is a duly registered religious corporations; that the respondents are likewise religious corporations, with the founders of these other churches coming from the folds of the petitioner and subsequently seceding therefrom; that petitioner was established as a religious corporation on May 9, 1922 and duly registered with the Bureau of Commerce on May 23, 1922 and with the Securities and Exchange Commission; that on August 21, 1947 its records were reconstructed from the records of the Securities and Exchange Commission; that subsequently, other churches have sprouted using the same name as that of the petitioner, although some of them have appended words or phrases before the basic name; that despite such added words or phrases used by the respondents, the name by which they are known is Church of God in Christ Jesus or its Tagalog or Spanish version thus creating confusion among the followers of the petitioner and thus unnecessarily impeding the latter's task of evangelizing and enlarging their faith; that the continued use by the respondents of the name similar to or identical with that of the petitioner will constitute violation of the protection given under the law, specifically Batas Pambansa Blg. 68 otherwise known as the Corporation Code of the Philippines. Hence, the instant petition for the respondents to change their name and to desist from using petitioner's name. For failure to file their answer within the reglementary period and upon motion of the petitioner, respondents EKLESIA TOU THEOU EN KRISTO HESOU, INC.,BISHOP OF THE IGLESIA NG DIOS KAY KRISTO HESUS, INC.,IGLESIA NG DIOS KAY KRISTO HESUS, HALIGI AT SUHAY NG KATOTOHANAN, AND PRESIDING HEAD BISHOP, IGLESIA NG DIOS KAY KRISTO JESUS (1,100 WIKA),INC. were declared in default. On May 13, 1983, a motion to set aside Order of Default was filed by respondent Iglesia ng Dios Kay Kristo Hesus, Haligi at Suhay ng Katotohanan, which motion, was granted and the order declaring the latter in default was lifted. On June 1, 1983, respondent Iglesia ng Dios kay Kristo Hesus, Haligi at Suhay ng Katotohanan instead of filing an answer to the petition, submitted a motion to dismiss. On January 3, 1984, an order was issued dismissing the petition insofar as respondent Iglesia ng Dios Kay Kristo Hesus, Haligi at Suhay ng Katotohanan is concerned. In their answers, the respondents are one in saying that while the petitioner was established as a religious corporation sometime in 1922, what was then duly registered with the Bureau of Commerce as its name was "Iglesia Verdadora de Cristo Jesus",that the records of the petitioner was reconstructed with this Honorable Commission in 1947 but the same was not a faithful reproduction of its original at least in so far as its registered name is concerned; that the respondents were able to register their corporate names since as indicated in their verification slips from the Records Section, it was certified that "same name does not appear to have been used by any corporation or partnership" that there can be no ground for confusion nor can there be any unnecessary impediment in the task of evangelizing the faith among petitioner's or respondents' followers as they have their own distinct doctrinal tenets, faith and beliefs and have their own places of religious worship; that petitioner as no exclusive right to use its registered name being a generic or descriptive name; and that one of the respondents even alleged that this Commission has no jurisdiction on the subject as the matter in issue herein is ecclesiastical or religious in nature and character. On the basis of the foregoing allegations, respondents contend that the petition should be dismissed as the petitioner has no cause of action as it has no exclusive right to use the name "Church of God in Christ Jesus or Iglesia ng Dios Kay Kristo Hesus or Iglesia de Dios En Cristo Hesus". The issues posed to be resolved are: a) Whether or not this Commission has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition; and b) Whether or not the petitioner has the right to use the name Church of God in Christ Jesus to the exclusion of all others. There is no dispute that this Commission has absolute and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition not only because petitioner and respondents are entities registered with this Commission but more so because what is involved here is an issue referring in particular to the name of the corporation, and not to the faith of each church nor its tenets nor its doctrines. The said issue is not ecclesiastical or religious in nature so as not to come within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Anent the other issue which, to my mind, is the main issue, petitioner remains to have the exclusive right to use the above-mentioned name to the exclusion of all others. That petitioner was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission well ahead of all the respondents is well borne out by the Corporate records of petitioner corporation. Generally speaking, corporate name may be considered as part of the corporate franchise and to a certain extent regarded as a property right, and one which cannot be impaired or defeated by subsequent appropriation by another corporation operating in the same field. (American Steel Foundries v. Robertson 269 U.S. 372, 7 L ED 317, 46 SCI 166) The inviolable nature of petitioner's right to the use of its corporate name rest primarily upon the fact that petitioner corporation was first identified in the field of religious activities under its present corporate name. By prior lawful entry into a business field under a legally adopted name, and by prior appropriation and use thereof, a corporation acquires a right to such name which the law will recognize and protect. (Standard Oil Company of New Mexico vs. Standard Oil Company of California 56 F2d 973, 977) Respondents' claim that petitioner cannot lay exclusive right for the use of the name Church of God in Christ Jesus as registered because the same is a generic or descriptive name is no argument at all because there is no provision in the bible which says that Christ actually shall be known as "Church of God in Christ Jesus". There is hardly any need for us to discuss lengthily respondents' allegation that there is no ground for confusion since all these churches have their own doctrines, tenets and places of worship because we cannot substitute a contrary or a more convincing proof for what is actually happening in petitioner's religious activities brought about by the respondents' continued use of petitioner's corporate name. As culled from the records of the testimonies of the witnesses presented by the petitioner, they testified that their (petitioner) evangelization process suffers difficulty because there are those who complained that there are too many churches carrying the name Iglesia ng Diyos Kay Kristo Hesus. And while there are some differences in the names, when these people representing the church face the faithful or the members of the church, they only use the name Iglesia ng Diyos Kay Kristo Hesus without identifying the church to which they belong, leaving the impression that there is only one church when in truth and in fact, there are three (3) different groups claiming to be the real church. The confusion brought about by the preceding incidents were of such a magnitude that even a person with such reasonable care and observation as the public generally are capable of using and may be expected to exercise, would mistake one for the other. A corporate name is to be regarded as an imitation of another when it so far resembles the other that a person using that care, caution and observation, which the public uses and may be expected to use would mistake one for the other, the location of the corporation and the character of business conducted being considered. (State v. MC GRATT 92 mo 355, 5 SW 29) And the test in determining whether there is likelihood of confusion between the two opposing name is whether they are sufficiently similar to deceive the public. Tested by the above standard, I find respondents' corporate name to be deceptively and confusingly similar to that of petitioner corporation. WHEREFORE, respondents are hereby directed to change their corporate names not similar to the names already used by any corporation, partnership or association registered with this Commission by amending their articles of incorporation in accordance with the Corporation Code and filing the same with this Commission upon payment of the corresponding filing fees, within thirty (30) days from finality thereof. Let copy of this Decision be furnished the Corporate and Legal Department and the Records Division of this Commission for their information and guidance. No pronouncement as to cost. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ALBERTO P. ATAS Hearing Officer