Amuerfina G. Santos, et al. vs. Leonila A. Mathay, et al.

[SEC-SICD * CASE NO. 2130. April 12, 1989.] AMUERFINA G. SANTOS, ET AL. , petitioners , vs . LEONILA A. MATHAY, ET AL. , respondents . D E C I S I O N This is a petition filed by the officers of the AUXILLIARY TO THE PHILIPPINE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION INC. (as amended) or APMA, INC. (for brevity) praying among others, that: "after due hearing, a writ of injunction be issued by this Commission ordering the respondents and all persons acting in their behalf or under their orders to permanently refrain from representing themselves as officers of the Auxilliary to the Philippine Medical Association, Inc., or APMA for the year 1981-1982". From the pleadings of the parties, it appears that petitioners were elected officers of the Women's Auxilliary to the Philippine Medical Association during the annual convention of the PHILIPPINE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (APMA) held on May 15, 1981. On the same day and in the same convention, respondents were also elected as officers of the Auxilliary of the Philippine Medical Association. Petitioner's former name was Women's Auxilliary to the Philippine Medical Association, Inc. On June 18, 1981, petitioners filed the amended articles of incorporation with the SEC changing its name from WAPMA, INC. to APMA, INC., deleting the word "WOMEN'S" from its original name. At the closing ceremonies of the convention of the PMA on May 16, 1981, both petitioners and the respondents were inducted by then President of the PMA, Dr. Perla Santos. On September 2, 1981, the petitioners filed the instant petition. The issue is whether or not the commission can validly issue an injunction against an association that is not registered with it? Petitioners base their action on the fact that since they are registered with this Commission, other associations, even if it is not registered, should not be allowed to use the same name. The problem lies in the fact that the association of respondents is not registered with this Commission or is it applying for registration and for which reason the Commission has no jurisdiction over the respondents' association. The authority of the respondents to use the name Auxilliary to the Philippine Medical Association is derived from its mother association, the Philippine Medical Association. Respondents are officers of an association whose existence entirely depends on the PMA unlike the petitioner which can exist independently of the PMA because it has a juridical personality. The PMA has the sole discretion of whether or not respondents should be allowed to name themselves as the auxilliary of the PMA. Clearly, the indispensable party in this case is the PMA and not the respondents. It is the PMA which is registered in the Commission and respondents' organization is under its auspices. The Commission has the jurisdiction over corporations over which it can enforce its coercive and supervisory powers over them. It may be argued that the Commission has acquired jurisdiction over the respondents when they filed their answer to the petition. This can only be true with respect to their persons but not on respondents' organization because the association, not being registered, has no juridical personality and therefore cannot be said to be represented by the respondents. If respondents' association has no legal personality it does not have a right of succession. Thus, any action taken by the Commission has no binding effect on the organization of respondents. If respondents resign and a new set of officers are elected, the orders and/or decisions of the Commission loses force and effect. On the other hand, it would be violative of the constitutional right to due process if an injunction is issued against the PMA because it is not a party to this case. Noteworthy is the fact that both parties are non-profit organizations and as such, it is not mandatory for them to be registered with this Commission. The evidence shows that respondents were first in using the same Auxilliary of the Philippine Medical Association. Petitioners filed their change of name only on June 18, 1981. Since petitioner is a registered corporation, it was officially named APMA, INC. only after their amended articles was approved by the Commission and only then was it entitled to protection of its name by this Commission. Thus, the right to protection of its name claimed by the petitioners is only with respect to associations which would want to be registered under the same name. LLpr In view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby dismissed for lack of cause of action of petitioners against the respondents. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ANTERO F.L. VILLAFLOR, JR. Hearing Officer