Church of God in Christ Jesus vs. Iglesia ng Diyos kay Kristo Hesus, Inc.

[SEC-SICD * CASE NO. 3320. August 16, 1990.] CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST JESUS, IGLESIA NG DIYOS KAY KRISTO HESUS , petitioner , vs .IGLESIA NG DIYOS KAY KRISTO HESUS, INC. , respondent . D E C I S I O N This is an action for the revocation and cancellation of the certificate of registration of respondent corporation. LibLex Petitioner, alleged inter alia, that it is a religious congregation whose affairs are being supervised, managed and administered by a Holy Council and has been registered and is in continuous existence since May 23, 1922 as Church of God In Christ Jesus/Iglesia De Dios En Cristo Jesus/Iglesia Ng Diyos Kay Kristo Hesus; that among the members of the church were Messrs. Renato C. Beltran, Rodolfo A. Natividad, Aurelio Domingo, Jose Beltran and Guillermo Termulo; that for certain acts inimical, contrary to or against the teachings and doctrines of the petitioner church, a move was started to investigate and eventually suspend or remove a group headed by Mr. Renato C. Beltran; that sensing the moves to remove them, Mr. Renato C. Beltran and his group pre-empted such moves and forming a splinter group or sect among themselves to foment a division within the petitioner church, sought to register a separate religious organization; that prior to the filing and/or approval of the articles of incorporation of the respondent, it executed on January 18, 1980 an undertaking to change its name in the event that another person, firm or entity has acquired a prior right to use the same or one similar to it; that a cursory reading and/or hearing of corporate names of the petitioner and the respondent will readily establish that confusion, mistakes or errors can be committed either by design or omission. Petitioner's corporate name is Church of God In Christ Jesus/Iglesia ng Diyos Kay Kristo Hesus while that of the respondent; capitalizing on the goodwill earned by the petitioner's church through out the years since 1922 is Iglesia Ng Diyos Kay Kristo Hesus, Inc./Church of God In Christ Jesus, Inc. A glaring example of the misuse and advantage being taken of by the respondent, in its dealings with the public is a communication addressed by the "Bishop" of the respondent, representing himself to be with the church of the petitioner, that the pernicious and unfair activities of the respondent through its officers, particularly its "bishop" prompted the petitioner to direct a letter to the Director of the National Library to set the records straight and also to request the respondent, thru its "bishop",to cease and desist from using the registered and established corporate name of the petitioner. However, reports continue to reach the petitioner of the illegal usage respondent of its corporate name. Moreover, petitioner contends that revocation and cancellation of respondent's Certificate of Registration finds legal basis under Sec. 2, Rule XX, Rules implementing PD 902-A . Respondent filed its answer with counterclaim and compulsory counterclaims and denied the material allegations in the petition and averred in the special and affirmative defenses that the petition states no cause of action. Respondent further claimed that the petition clearly and specifically states that it is for revocation of certificate of registration with injunctive relief. Also, petitioner prays for an order of the revocation and cancellation of the articles of incorporation of respondent; that the grounds relied upon by the petitioner is devoid of any factual allegations to warrant the revocation of the respondent. Likewise, respondent contends that the Commission has no jurisdiction over the subject matter and/or the nature of the action or suit since the corporate name of the respondent is in accordance with the teaching of the Holy Scripture; that under its Declaration of Doctrine, Faith and Belief, it is made manifest that members of respondent "believe that the Iglesia Ng Dios Kay Kristo Hesus (Church of God In Christ Jesus) is the one God found on earth as an instrument of man's salvation". Thus, it is respondent's deeply ingrained doctrine, untainted faith, and unchangeable religious belief that "The Iglesia Ng Dios Kay Kristo Hesus was the one prophesied to be established by God thru Jesus Christ, in Jerusalem . . . ". The petition centers only on the respondent's use of the name Iglesia Ng Dios Kay Kristo Hesus", but said name is derived from the Holy Bible by respondent; not only by reason of temporal necessity but by reason of its-members' deeply ingrained faith and belief. Respondent maintain that the matter is essentially and purely religious or ecclesiastical in nature and character and therefore, may not be infringed upon by this Commission; that for the Commission to assume jurisdiction over said issue would be an undue encroachment and violation of herein respondent's members' fundamental personal rights and of freedom "the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship" without discrimination or preference under Section 5 of Article III of the Constitution. Respondent furthermore intimated that the Corporation Code, Title XIII Chapter II, was complied with by herein respondent in its registration with the Commission, and that there is neither violation of nor-prohibition in any of its provisions on herein respondent's use of the biblical name Iglesia Ng Dios Kay Kristo Hesus, as in fact the same is fully sanctioned by said provisions, for it is clear from the provisions of Section 111 and 116 of the said Code that any religious society, order; or diocese, or synod, may incorporate under the name of religious denomination, sect, or church to which it belongs; and that by faith and belief, respondent church belongs to that universal church, sect or society that our Lord Jesus Christ himself established in Jerusalem during the first century, as stressed by the Holy Bible, its name Iglesia Ng Dios Kay Kristo Hesus and respondent being a diocese, synod or district of said universal church situated at Marikina, Metro Manila, Philippines. In the issue at bar, it appears that the corporate name of the petitioner has been in use and is in continuous existence since May 23, 1922. On the other hand, the respondent was registered only on March 3, 1980. Respondent insists that its name is in accordance with the teaching of the Holy Scripture and therefore, the Commission has no jurisdiction over the subject matter and/or nature of the action. The law provides that corporations created by special laws or charters shall be governed primarily by the provision of the special law or charter creating them or applicable to them, supplemented by the provisions of the Corporation Code. In the instant case, there is no doubt that the use by the respondent of its corporate name falls within the purview of Section 18 of the Corporation Code as follows: "No corporation 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 any other name already protected by law ...." From the facts narrated in the petition, as well as the evidence adduced, we find the corporate name of petitioner and the respondent to be sufficiently identical or deceptively or confusingly similar. Furthermore, it is clear that the corporate names in question resemble each other principally on the use of the words "Iglesia Ng Diyos Kay Kristo Hesus" and this is aggravated by the fact that both corporations are engaged in similar line of religious activities. Accordingly, deception or confusion is probable to occur. Jurisprudence is replete with rulings to the effect that the nature and business of the corporation involved are important factors bearing on the likelihood of deception from the use of similar name. In fact, petitioner was able to prove confusion through the testimony of respondents' witness as to what sect or group he is a Minister of. Nevertheless, it has been held that even the lack or absence of proof of actual confusion or deception of the public is immaterial since actual confusion need not be shown, but it is sufficient that confusion is probable or likely to occur. (Weiskitted & Son Co. Harry C. Weiskitted & Son Co. 48, Fletcher Vol. 6) cdll Furthermore it was held unnecessary to show that anyone had actually been misled by similarity in names, and that it was sufficient that the use of name was likely to produce deception. (1041, Fletcher Vol. 6) Anent the issue of revocation and cancellation of the certificate of incorporation of the respondent, we find no sufficient basis to sustain the grounds relied upon by the petitioner. WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby ordered to change its corporate name to another name not similar to any name already used by a corporation, partnership or association registered with this Commission by amending its 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 hereof. Let copy of this Decision be furnished the Legal Department and Records Division of this Commission for their information and guidance. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ENRIQUE L. FLORES, JR. Hearing Officer