SEC EB Case No. 06-07-102PHILIPPINE DERMATOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC., Appellant, v. PHILIPPINE ACADEMY OF CLINICAL AND COSMETIC DERMATOLOGY, INC., Appellee.

Securities and Exchange Commission COMMISSION EN BANC Republic of the Phillppines Department ol Finance

SOCIETY,INC PHILIPPINE DERMATOLOGICAL Petitioner-Appellant,

-versus- In Re:Petition for Revocation of the Registration of Corporate Name SEC En Banc Case No. 06-07-102 (SEC Case No.01-06-106 Promulgated: 13 September 2022

DERMATOLOGY,INC. PHILIPPINE CLINICAL Respondent-Appellee. AND ACADEMY COSMETIC OF

X

DECISION

June 2007 (the "Appeal") filed by Petitioner-Appellant PHILIPPINE sustained the use by herein Respondent-Appellee of the corporate name of the PHILIPPINE ACADEMY OF CLINICAL AND COSMETIC substantiate its allegation that the use of the word "Dermatology" by PACCD is patently deceptive DERMATOLOGICAL SOCIETY,INC.PDS),assailing the Order dated 24 May 2007 (the Assailed Order") of the Office of the General Counsel which dismissed its Petition dated 30 January 2006 (the Petition"),and DERMATOLOGY,INC.(PACCD) on the basis of a finding that PDS failed to Before this Commission is the Memorandum of Appeal dated 19

THE PARTIES

existing under Philippine laws.Its principal address is at Suite 1015 South Tower,Cathedral Heights Bldg.ComplexSt. Luke's Medical Center E.Rodriguez Avenue,Quezon City PDS is a non-stock, non-profit corporation duly organized and

Philippine laws,having been issued a Certificate of Incorporation bearing Company Reg.No.CN200323116.Its principal address is at 31-G A.Roces Avenue, Brgy. Paligsahan, Quezon City. PACCD is a non-stock corporation duly organized and existing under

Philippir Philippine Academy of Clinical an SECEn Bane Cse No.06-07.102 iefv.ln ac2of1 DECH

RELEVANT FACTS

holds itself out as a group of skin specialists or dermatologists." General Counsel (OGC),praying for the revocation of the corporate name of PACCD,alleging that PACCD's use of the word Dermatology"is patently deceptive to the public because while most of its members are not graduates of any PDS-accredited dermatology training program, it On 01 February 2006,PDS filed the Petition with the Office of the

word "Philippine"the words used by both parties are entirely different. PACCD further argued that the other issues raised therein are outside the jurisdiction of the Commission. argued that the Petition is dismissible on the ground that,except for the In its Answer/Comment/0bjection dated 27 February 2006,PACCD

of difficulties of administration and supervision over corporations. In prohibition on the use of a patently deceptive corporate name,among others,under Section 18 of the Corporation Code2 i.e., the avoidance of fraud upon the public who will have the occasion to deal with the entity relation to the allegation of PDS that the use by PACCD of the word substantiate the same with the required quantum of evidence.Hence,the concerned, the evasion of legal obligations and duties,and the reduction "Dermatologyis patently deceptive,the OGC ruled that PDS failed to dismissal of the Petition. In the Assailed Order, the OGC emphasized the policy behind the

obtained from PDS, which is allegedly the only sub-specialty society appellate authority and requested that the Assailed Order be reversed and set aside,on the basis of the same argument that the use by PACCD is falsely claiming that its members are qualified dermatologists,even if members of PACCD are not eligible to practice as consultants and residency staff training officers in tertiary government and private hospitals.This is because the accreditation of PACCD members was not recognized by the Philippine College of Physicians (PCP) and the Philippine Medical Association (PMA),3 pursuant to theOne Specialty One Society Policyof the PMA.On these bases,PDS argued that the OGC of the word"Dermatology"is patently deceptive.PDS alleged that PACCD PDS thereafter invoked the exercise by this Commission of its

PDS maintains that the agency entrusted with the regulation of the practice of dermatology is the Philippine College of Physicians, which is the specialty division recognized by the Philippine Medical Docketed as SEC Case No. 01-00-106 Association to accredit a sub-specialty society for dermatology (Par.27 of the Appeal). 2 Batas Pambansa Blg. 68.

Philippin hilippincAcademv.ofcimicalan

SEC En Banc Case No.0 O -07-10

ao3of1

committed reversible error in holding that no evidence was presented to substantiate the Petition.

generic name used in the practice of medicine, cannot be privately specialty society, arguing that PMA is a private, non-profit, non-stock corporation. Finally, PACCD argued that the determination of the expertise of the members of both parties is not within the competence and jurisdiction of the Commission. doctor who decides to concentrate on the practice of dermatology may be called a specialist in dermatology, this does not preclude general practitioners from practicing dermatology.Further,PACCD assails and questions the authority of PMA to officially recognize PDS as the only sub appropriated by any entity,to the exclusion of others; and that while a In its Memorandum, PACCD maintained that "dermatology,"being a

prevent confusion on the part of the public. only recognizes PDS as the society for dermatologists, which in turn means that only the members of PDS will be recognized by PMA as specialists in the field of dermatology.PMA also manifested that in its opinion, there should be only one society that deals with dermatology to On 23 February 2012,PMA filed its Brief where it confirmed that it

ISSUE

Dermatology, Inc.,of the word dermatology as part of its corporate name patently deceptive that warrants a revocation of such corporate name? Is the use by the Philippine Academy of Clinical and Cosmetic

RULING

truth and in fact it is not, constitutes deceit upon the public.s members falsely represented that it conducts training programs consistent with the standards of the medical community, and are On the part of PDS, it claims that it is the only sub-specialty society recognized by the PCP and the PMA,and alleges that PACCD and its qualified dermatologists, respectively.4 This,according to PDS,is the heart of the dispute because PACCD's representation that it is fully arguments advanced by the parties in support of their respective claims. capable of training and certifying specialists in dermatology, when in At the outset, this Commission notes of the allegations and

5Par.24 of the Supplemental Memorandum dated 20 February 2008 filed by PDS. Pars.7and8of the Appeal

SEC En Banc Case No.06-07.107 tic Page 4 of 13 DECISION

licensed doctors who have passed the board examinations given by the Professional Regulatory Commission, and can practice dermatology as revocation of PACCD's corporate name is to enable PDS to monopolize the practice of dermatology in the country which will allegedly deny clients/patients the choice of their doctor(s).7 general practitioners. PACCD sees that the purpose of PDS in seeking the PACCD on the other hand,maintains that its members are all duly

vested with jurisdiction to determine who is qualified to engage in the practice of dermatology, as discussed at length by the parties, the pass upon the same considering that under Republic Act (RA) Nos.89818 and 2382,9 it is the Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC) which is practice of medicine, including dermatology, and to train and certify specialists in dermatology. Commission holds that it has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and As regards the foregoing issues and arguments relative to the

is patently deceptive and should be removed as part of its corporate name,or revoked pursuant to Section 18 of the Corporation Code which determination of whether the use by PACCD of the word"dermatology states that: On account thereof, the Commission will thus confine itself to the

certificate of incorporation under the amended name. (Emphasis "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 deceptive, confusing or contrary to existing laws. When a change in the corporate name is approved, the Commission shall issue an amended corporation or to any other name already protected by law or is patently supplied)

prohibition on the use of corporate names in the fore-quoted provision is with the entity concerned,the evasion of legal obligations and duties,and the reduction of difficulties of administration and supervision over corporations. 1o protect the public from fraud,actual or potential, caused by,or which may arise in relation to,or as a consequence of the use of corporate names.As correctly pointed out in the Assailed Order, the policy underlying the the avoidance of fraud upon the public which would have occasion to deal The Commission is mandated under the afore-quoted provision to

PRC Modernization Act of 200005December2000 6See Par.2page 1 of the Memorandum dated 04 July 2006 of PACCD 7 Par.8.3 of the Rejoinder/Comment/Opposition to Appellant's Supplemental Memorandum dated 11 9The Medical Act of 1959(20 June 1959). 1Lyceum of the Philippines, Inc.vs CA G.R.No. 101897.05 March 1993) March 2008.

b

FO SEC En Banc Case No.06-07-102 *tic Page 5 of 13 DECISION

the Commission ample power and authority to deregister and/or revoke any name that is found to violate Section 18 of the Corporation Code. In the case of Industrial Refractories Corporation of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals,12 the Supreme Court affirmed the foregoing mandate in relation to the de-registration of a name found to be violative of Section 18 for being confusingly similar to a registered name, to wit name and an individual name as regards the manner of their acquisition. A corporation acquires its name by choice and is thus accorded a wide latitude and discretion to create or adopt one that is unique and not patently deceptive, among others,while an individual's name is thrust upon him.11 It is in this context that the law deemed it necessary and imperative to regulate the use of corporate names, and conferred upon Moreover there is an important distinction between a corporate

register at all times and under all circumstances corporate names therefore,the present case falls within the ambit of the SEC's regulatory "It is the SEc's duty to prevent confusion in the use of corporate names not only for the protection of the corporations involved but more so for the protection of the public,and it has authority to de- which in its estimation are likely to generate confusion. Clearly powers.(Emphasis supplied)

to fall within the express prohibition of Section 18 of the Corporation Code,two 2 requisites must be proven to exist,to wit It is an established jurisprudential rule that for a corporate name

"To come within its scope, two requisites must be proven, namely

(1) (2 that the complainant corporation acquired a prior right over the use of such corporate name; and the proposed name is either:

b deceptively or confusingly similar to that of any existing (a) identical; or corporation or to any other name already protected by law;

c patently deceptive, confusing or contrary to existing 10 law.13 (Emphasis supplied

of registration,the same being the date when the said corporation begins using the such approved corporate name. In Indian Chamber of Commerce over the use of a corporate name, the Supreme Court has consistently applied the priority of adoption rule which reckons the rightful entitlement of a corporation to the use of a corporate name from the date In relation to the first requisite, i.e. the acquisition of a prior right

13 Philips Export B.V.vs Court of AppealsGR.No.96161,21February 1992 1 Standard Oil Co. of N.M.vs Standard Oil Co. of Cal.,13 U.S.P.Q.76 12 G.R.No.122174,03 October 2002

caan SEC En Banc Case No.06-07-102 Page6of 13 ECISI

Inc.,14 the Court ruled as follows: Phils., Inc. vs. Filipino Indian Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines

acquired the right to use the word'Refractories'as part of its corporate its Articles of Incorporation on August 23, 1985. (Emphasis Appeals, the Court applied the priority of adoption rule to supplied) In Industrial Refractories Corporation of the Philippines v. Court of determine prior right, taking into consideration the dates when the parties used their respective corporate names. It ruled that Industrial Refractories Corporation of the Philippines'IRCP), has name,being its prior registrant on October 13,1976.The Court noted that IRCP only started using its corporate name when it amended Refractories Corporation of the Philippines'(RCP), as opposed to

21 February 1974,while PACCD was incorporated on 13 October 2003 or twenty-nine (29)years after the incorporation of PDS.Clearly,PDS has acquired prior rights over its corporate name. In the instant case,the records show that PDS was incorporated on

limits the prohibition to names that are not distinguishable, or those regulations.However,for purposes of the instant case,Section 18 of the regulations,and even in jurisprudence. Moreover, it is notable that the adopted in Section 17 of the Revised Corporation Code,15 which now already protected by law,or those used contrary to existing laws,rules or old Corporation Code will be applied as this was the governing law when the Petition was filed with the Commission. case is apparently novel in the sense that the concept of a "patently deceptive" corporate name is not defined under existing laws,rules or prohibition on the use of the patently deceptive corporate name was not As regards the second requisite, the issue presented in the instant

expressly prohibited are those that are deceptively similar to that of any those that are patently deceptive. These are two (2 kinds of corporate names which the law considers and treats differently.In the instant case this distinction should be made and clarified because PDS is not claiming that PACCD's corporate name is deceptively similar (or is identical, or allegedly using a "patently deceptive" corporate name relative and consequent to its use of the word "dermatology"as a part thereof. existing corporation or to any other name already protected by law,and confusingly similar to its name, instead PDS is charging PACCD of Under Section 18 of the Corporation Code, among the names

an identical, or deceptively or confusingly similar name should be struck The Supreme Court had,on several occasions,ruled that the use of

I4 G.R.No. 184008, 03 August 2016 15 RA No.11232

SEC En Sane Case No. 06--12 Page of 13 DECIS

sought to be avoided in prohibiting the use of a name that is identical, or deceptively or confusingly similar to one that is already registered or because even under the test of "reasonable care and observation as the public generally are capable of using and may be expected to exercise," to change their corporate names for being identical, or deceptively or confusingly similar to Universal Textile Mills, Inc.17 Filipino Indian Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines, Inc.18 and Iglesia ng Dios kay Cristo Jesus, Haligi at Suhay ng Katotohanan19 respectively.In GSIS Family Bank vs BPI Family Bank,20 the Supreme Court held that the evil protected by law is the confusion caused on the public,thus: down as a practice that is proscribed under the Corporation Code confusion will usually arise.16 ThusUniversal Mills CorporationIndian Chamber of Commerce Philippines,Inc.,and Ang Mga Kaanib sa Iglesia ng Dios kay Kristo Hesus,H.S.K. sa Bansang Pilipinas,Inc.were all directed

between petitioner's proposed name and respondent's corporate name, as found by the SEC. In determining the existence of confusing similarity in corporate names, the test is whether the similarity is such "On the second point (b), there is a deceptive and confusing similarity as to mislead a person using ordinary care and discrimination. And even without such proof of actual confusion between the two corporate names.it suffices that confusion is probable or likely to occur

Petitioner's corporate name is "GSIS Family Bank-A Thrift Bank"and likelihood of confusion is accentuated in cases where the goods or business of one corporation are the same or substantially the same to that of another corporation.(Underscoring supplied) distinguish the two are "BPI,""GSIS,"and "Thrift." The first two words are merely the acronyms of the proper names by which the two the classification of the bank. The overriding consideration in determining whether a person, using ordinary care and discrimination, might be misled is the circumstance that both petitioner and respondent are engaged in the same business of banking. "The respondent's corporate name is"BPI Family Bank."The only words that corporations identify themselves;and the third word simply describes

PACCD's corporate name is such. The absence of jurisprudence on the foregoing doctrinal pronouncements because PDS is not alleging that PACCD's corporate name is identical, or deceptively or confusingly similar to its corporate name. The Commission is rather presented with the issue of ruling what a"patently deceptive"corporate name is,and if matter necessitates the exercise by the Commission of its authority to In the instant case the Commission is not called upon to apply the

1 Indian Chamber of Commerce Philippines. Inc. vs Filipino Indian Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines, Inc.G.R.No.184008,03 August 2016. 19 Ang Mga Kaanib sa Iglesia ng Dios kay Kristo Hesus, H.S.K. sa Bansang Pilipinas, Inc.vs Iglesia ng Dios kay Cristo Jesus,Haligi at Suhay ng Katotohanan G.R.No.137592,12 December 2001 1 Universal Mills Corporation vs Universal Textile Mills,Inc.G.R.No.L-28351,28 July 1977 2G.R.No.175278,23 September 2015 bid

SEC En Banc Case No. 06-07-102 Page 8 of 13 DECISION

interpret and implement at the first instance) the provision of the Corporation Code (now the Revised Corporation Code

is defrauded as a consequence of the use of such name is what identical, or deceptively or confusingly similar corporate names, all of the public. The intent to deceive,and the prejudice upon the public who distinguishes "patently deceptive" corporate names from those that are which are proscribed under Section 18 of the Corporation Code. corporate names under established jurisprudence, this Commission holds that a"patently deceptive"corporate name is one that is used for the purpose of and/or will necessarily result in deceiving or defrauding Guided by the concept of identical,deceptively or confusingly similar

and determination of whether a name is patently deceptive may be carried out independently, regardless of whether there is a competing identical,or deceptively or confusingly similar is always made in relation to and/or in comparison with another name which is already registered that preceded it,i.e."deceptively"and"confusingly"the law intended to names so as not to confuse the public.On the other hand, the evaluation name, by considering that if given the attendant circumstances, its use or protected by law. By using of the word"similarto qualify the words prohibit the use by two 2 or more corporations of the same or identical will per se deceive the public. Moreover, the evaluation and determination of whether a name is

name is novel, but because it nonetheless results in the public being concerned entity to defraud,as,for instance, when incorporators come up with a name based on their initials, believing in good faith that the used with the intent to defraud or deceive,and results, in all probability in the public being prejudiced or damaged.Stated otherwise,the use or adoption of a patently deceptive name is willful and intentional,attended by bad faith,and with an intent on the part of the incorporators to deceive corporate name may be used without the intent on the part of the misled,potentially or otherwise, the same has to be changed.A patently deceptive corporate name is prohibited because it is one that is always Thus, while an identical, or deceptively or confusingly similar

or defraud.

the corporate name of PACCD should either be removed or changed because the same is patently deceptive in the light of the alleged false representation that it is conducting training programs consistent with the standards of the medical community, and that its members are qualified dermatologists. In the instant case,PDS maintains that the word "dermatology" in

Philppine Dermiato logical Society.Inc

hilippine Acnc SEC En Banc Case No.06-07-102 osmetic Dermatology, Inc nfGisie Page 9 of 13 DECISION al an

the word"dermatology"as part of its corporate name does not make such presented by the parties,the Commission finds that the use by PACCD of corporate name patently deceptive under Section 18 of the Corporation Code. After a careful consideration of the arguments and the evidence

accustomed to associate or relate to the study, research, diagnosis, is commonly used to signify a branch of medicine dealing with skin, and skin, hair, nails, and membranes performed by a licensed doctor, or health professional under the supervision of a licensed doctor. its diseases.22 Dermatology is a descriptive word that our public has been treatment,and management of any health conditions that may affect the In English,one of our official languages,21 the worddermatology

individuals (or group thereof are engaged in the practice of the welfare. Thus,there are statutes that specifically restrict the use of words related to regulate professions,such as"engineer"or"architect",as part of a firm's name.23 The policy of these laws in regulating the use of firm profession. order to promote, protect, and safeguard public health, safety, and names is to ensure and guarantee to the public that only licensed Our government regulates the practice of certain professions in

adopted the following rule in its Guidelines and Procedures on the use of Corporate and Partnership Names,24 thus: Pursuant to,and consistent with such statutes, the Commission has

firm, partnership or association shall govern the use of the name, e.g. "The practice of a profession regulated by a special law which among others provides for the permissible use of the profession's name in a "Engineer"orEngineering"(R.A.1582),ArchitectR.A.9266),or "Geodetic Engineer" (R.A. 8560).

Notwithstanding the limitations mentioned above, any association registered by entities engaged in the listed activities may use the profession's name,e.g. Association of Engineers of the Philippines,Inc.

notice of RA No.2382,otherwise known as The Medical Act of 1959 which regulates the practice of medicine in the Philippines. Unlike the use of the words associated with the medical profession as part of a firm's name. statutes regulating other professions,the Medical Act of 1959 is silent on In relation to the instant case, this Commission takes administrative

2+ SEC Memorandum Circular No. 5, series of 2008. 21 1987 Constitution, Article XIV, Section 7. 22dermatology. Dictionary.com 2022. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dermatology. RA No. 1582 and RA No.9266.

Philip ne

SEC En Banc Case No. 06-Y-102 c Page 10 of 13 ECIIO

expressly prohibits licensed physicians/doctors from using words associated with the medical profession, the performance by the partnership names under Section 18 of the Corporation Code should be Commission of its mandate in regulating the use of corporate or In the absence of any provision in the Medical Act of 1959 which

name, or part thereof, which relates to the practice of the medical limited to ensuring that the use of words as corporate or partnership

that they are licensed to practice medicine when in truth, they are not. public is protected from being defrauded by scheming persons who will use a name associated with the medical profession and make it appear profession,are only used by licensed physicians/doctors. In this way,the

Undoubtedly, the use of a name associated with the practice of

deceptive because such practice is not only a lie, it is also illegal. The Commission, however, holds that this is not attendant in the instant case. medicine or any regulated profession for that matter,by persons who are not licensed to practice such profession renders the name patently

even remotely,that the use by PACCD of the word"dermatologyas part documents of PACCD and pleadings on record neither show nor suggest To begin with, the Commission finds that the constitutional

of its corporate name was made for the purpose of engaging in the practice of medicine25 and/or provision of medical services. In particular Article SECOND of PACCD's Articles of Incorporation (AOI clearly provides that the association was established as a non-stock,non-profit entity primarily for the purpose of promoting and advancing the members'knowledge in dermatology through the exchange of ideas and affiliation with relevant organizations, to wit

"That the purpose or purposes for which such association is incorporated are:

Objectives To promote the continuing medical education research and information on recent advances in cosmetic/clinical dermatology & dissemination [sic] this knowledge to physicians interested in this

To be a venue of qualified Filipino dermatologists to exchange ideas & experiences among members & other outside the country field to the ultimate benefit of the people with skin ailments.

diagnose, treat, operate or prescribe any remedy for any human disease, injury,deformity, physical person shall be considered as engaged in the practice of medicine a) who shall, for compensation,fee television or any other means of communication, either offer or undertake by any means or method to mental or physical condition; or (c) who shall use the title M.D. after his name. 25 Section 10 of the Medical Act of 1959 provides for the acts constituting practice of medicine:A salary or reward in any form, paid to him directly or through another or even without the same. physical examine any person, and diagnose, treat, operate or prescribe any remedy for any human regardless of the nature of the remedy or treatment administered,prescribed or recommended;or(b who shall, by means of signs, cards, advertisements, written or printed matter, or through the radio disease, injury, deformity,physical,mental or physical condition or any ailment,real or imaginary

Philippine Dermt

hippu LACE Vofc nicalanc SEC n ano71 Page 11 of 13 ECISIO

To affiliate with medical&/or non-medical organizations both local & international to assist in the promotion of our objectives. To be able to set up training programs in the field of dermatology.

physicians who are "interested" in the field of dermatology. and career development of its members.PACCD does this by conducting seminars, fora, conventions,and similar programs that are designed to authorized purpose to provide medical services to the public,neither is it intended to engage in any act constituting the practice of medicine as defined under the Medical Act of 1959 simply because the entity was established,and is only authorized, to be a venue for continued learning supplement and develop the competencies of their members and other Suffice it to state that under its AOI, PACCD is bereft of any

allegedly not eligible to practice in tertiary government hospitals and universities.27 the belief that its members have the training and qualifications required by the medical community to practice dermatology,26 when they are "dermatology by PACCD patently deceptive because this allegedly constitutes misrepresentation and deceit upon the public who is led to PDS claims that the foregoing is what renders the use of

The position and arguments of PDS fail to convince

their creation by their incorporators in accordance with law. Unlike Corporations are artificial beings granted legal personalities upon

natural persons,corporations have no inherent powers as Section 2 of the

are limited to those "expressly authorized by law or incident to its existence.28 Third persons dealing with corporations, therefore,need to and its articles of incorporation, they cannot assume that these may exercise and perform only the powers and authority expressly granted by laws and its articles of incorporation, and any act made outside of those parameters can be struck down for being ultra vires.29 corporations have powers.Consequently,and necessarily, corporations Corporation Code categorically provides that the powers of a corporation determine their authority and competence as expressly defined by law

members and other physicians,who may or may not be members,who that are designed to supplement and develop the competencies of their The conduct of seminars,fora, conventions, and similar programs

Par.37 of the Appeal. 2Section 2. Corporation defined. -A corporation is an artificial being created by operation of law, having the right of succession and the powers, attributes and properties expressly authorized by law 2 See University of Mindanao, Inc.vs Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas G.R. No.194964-65,11 January 27 Pars. 40 and 41 of the Appeal or incident to its existence." 2016)

Phiip0u 10tvn

01UD010eAc emvorcninicalan SEC En Banc Case No.06-07-102

ae12of1

the objectives of PACCD as spelled out in its purpose clause.These acts are expressly authorized,and are among the powers expressly granted to are interested in the field of dermatology is consistent with,and furthers PACCD. The performance of the same cannot, therefore, constitute misrepresentation,or result in the perpetration of deceit upon the public.

is more imagined than real. Absent proof of actual deception upon non- members of the profession, the Commission underscores that the constitutional documents of PACCD indicate that it will only be dealing the field of dermatology, and not with the general public. of its corporate name will defraud the public for being patently deceptive with its members and other licensed physicians who are"interested"in Moreover,the allegation that PACCD's use of dermatologyas part

are licensed to engage in the practice of medicine and provide medical services, when they are, in truth,not armed with the requisite license. that contain words associated with the practice of medicine, the determination of whether the same is patently deceptive should be made in the context of and under the parameters laid down by the Medical Act of 1959.The objective is to ensure that the public is not defrauded by persons who use corporate names suggesting or representing that they We emphasized earlier that in regulating the use of corporate names

the practice of the medical profession. Nonetheless,PDS wants the word members are allegedly using the corporation to deceive the public by representing that they are qualified to practice dermatology. "dermatology"removed from the corporate name of PACCD because its In the instant case,there is no allegation that PACCD is engaged in

impliedly suggesting that it has members who are not qualified to practice medicine.31 This argument, unsupported by evidence showing passed the board examinations given by the Professional Regulatory Commission3o where a list of its prominent officers and members were provided,PDS merely averred that the AOI of PACCD does not contain a provision requiring its members to be qualified physicians, thus that PACCD has members that are not licensed to engage in the practice of medicine cannot overcome the evidence presented by PACCD that its members are all licensed physicians. The foregoing is consistent with the prohibits,expressly or impliedly,the use of the word dermatology"as part of a corporate name of an association established by licensed physicians/medical practitioners. In this regard,we note that in relation to the claim of PACCD that "its members are all licensed doctors who have The Medical Act of 1959 does not contain any provision that

30 See 2nd paragraph (page 1) of the Memorandum dated 04 July 2006 filed by PACCD 31 Par.28 of the Supplemental Memorandum dated 20February 2008 filed by PDS

Philipp

hiiippineAca SEC En Banc Case No.06-07-102 neticDermatology.In O Page 13 of 13 DECISION

rule that he who alleges must prove,32 and that while in administrative evidence,33 PDS failed to satisfy the same. proceedings, the quantum of evidence required is merely substantial

Finally, there is nothing in the evidence on record that shows that

public against PACCD or against any of its members who are privately involve identical, or deceptively or confusingly similar corporate names. practicing medicine was filed or submitted with the Commission Moreover, we find that the rule on the probability or likelihood of confusion34 is not applicable in the instant case as the issue does not the public was defrauded or deceived by the use of PACCD "dermatology" as part of its corporate name; no complaint from the 1

for lack of merit. WHEREFORE,premises considered,the Appeal is hereby DENIED

SO ORDERED.

Makati City,Philippines.

EMILIO B.AQUINO Chairpgrson MM

JAVEY PAUL D.FRANCISCO KEWIN UER .LEE

Commissioner Commissioner

KARLO S.BELLO M LL BRYANTT.FERNANDEZ Commissioner Commissioner

3 The Court has stressed time and again that allegations must be proven by sufficient evidence because mere suffices that confusion is probable or likely to occur." (Emphasis supplied) [GSIS Family Bank - Thrift Bank v. 33 "Substantial evidence, quantum of proof in administrative cases be enough for a reasonable mind to support a conclusion.(Miro vs De Erederos.G.R.No.172532;172544-45.20 discrimination. And even without such proof of actual confusion between the two corporate names, it allegation is definitely not evidence.Spouses Ramos vs Obispo,G.R.No.193804,27 February 2013 Substantial evidence is defined as such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe, based on the evidence submitted, that the respondent is ordinary civil case, or evidence beyond reasonable doubt,as is required in criminal cases,but the evidence must November 2013 respondent's corporate name, as found by the SEC. In determining the existence of confusing similarity in corporate names,the test is whether the similarity is such as to mislead a person using ordinary care and adequate to support a conclusion. It is more than a mere scintilla of evidence.The standard of substantial evidence responsible for the misconduct complained of. It need not be overwhelming or preponderant,as is required in an 34"On the second point (b),there is a deceptive and confusing similarity between petitioner's proposed name and BPIFamily Bank G.R.No.175278.23 September2015