SEC En Banc Case No. 09-13-301 Appeal filed on 19 September 2013, by GENTRI DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER, INC. (Respondent-Appelant) under Rule XI of the 2006 Rules of PRocedures of the Securities and Exchange Commission assailing the Decision of the Office of the General Counsel (OGC)

SEC Building, EDSA, Greenhills, Mandaluyong City Securities and Exchange Commission Republic of the Philippines Department of Finance

HOSPITAL INC., GENTRIMEDICALCENTERAND Petitioner-Appellee,

-versus- SEC En Banc Case No. 09-13-301

GENTRI CENTER, INC. DOCTORS Respondent-Appellant. MEDICAL

DECISION

of the 2006 Rules of Procedure of the Securities and Exchange Commission (2006 Rules) its corporate name by amending its Articles of Incorporation and deleting the word GENTRI DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER, INC. (Respondent-Appellant) under Rule XI assailing the Decision of the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) in SEC Case No. 06) 11-346,granting the Petition2 filed by GENTRI MEDICAL CENTER AND HOSPITAL INC. (Petitioner-Appellee) and directing the Respondent-Appellant to change or modify "GENTRI" Before the Commission En Banc is an Appeal', filed on 19 September 2013, by

The parties to this case are medical institutions.

2011 under SEC Registration No. CS201100524.3 Its primary purpose is to establish, own, manage and maintain a hospital or hospitals, medical and clinical laboratories and services in connection therewith, subject to the condition that purely professional medical and surgical services shall be performed by duly qualified physicians or surgeons who may or may not be connected with the corporation and whose services shall be freely and individually contracted by the patients." Manggahan, General Trias, Cavite. such other enterprises which may have similar or analogous undertakings or dedicated to The Petitioner-Appellee was incorporated with the Commission on 14 January Its principal office is located in Brgy.

Daec3Aor20 AnexAPenIbi Ser ond AHce of the Artic:es of incorporation of the Perinoner-Apoeliee Memorandum onAppealdated:8 Sep:ember 203 anceached to the Norice ofAppealoreven Ca:e, Records, D 67 Thir Aicie of ne Arices of incorporation ofne Peoner-Apeee

Gentri Medical Center and Hospital, Inc. vs. SEC En Banc Case No. 09-13-301 Gentri Doctors Hospital, Inc. Page 2 of 8 Decision

Commission on 30 March 2011 under SEC Registration No. CS201105297. Its primary purpose is to establish, operate, own, manage and maintain a hospital or hospitals, medical and clinical laboratories and such other enterprise which may have similar, related or analogous undertakings or dedicated to services in connection therewith, performed by duly qualified physicians or surgeons who may or may not be connected subject to the condition that purely professional medical and surgical services shall be with the corporation and whose services shall be freely and individually contracted by the patient.7 Its principal office is located in Governor's Drive, Manggahan, General Trias, Cavite.: The Respondent-Appellant, on the other hand, was incorporated with the

Commission, the Petitioner-Appellee filed with the OGC the Petition praying for the cancellation and disallowance of the Respondent-Appellant's corporate registration or otherwise ordered to change its corporate name. Discovering that Respondent-Appellant has reserved its corporate name with the

22 August 2013, with the following dispositive portion: The OGC decided in favor of the Petitioner-Appellee and rendered judgment on

hereby DIRECTED TO CHANGE OR MODIFY its corporate name by amending its Articles of Incorporation and deleting the word "GENTRI" within thirty (30) days from receipt of this Order. Respondent is directed to file a compliance report within the said 30-day period. Failure to comply may ground for the revocation of respondent's Certificate of Incorporation. GRANTED. Respondent GENTRI DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER, INC. is constitute indirect contempt which will be punished accordingly, and may be a "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is hereby

and Monitoring Department for proper notation and action. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Company Registration

SO ORDERED.

errors: Aggrieved, Respondent-Appellant filed the instant Appeal, raising the following

(1) the Petition should have been denied as the claims and allegations of the Petitioner-Appellee were not proven, substantiated and established;

ThicAce of ne Aticies of incorporation of she Respodertppellant Seconc Arice of ene Articies of incorporation of tne Respondent-poellant Ans wel Annex ""

Gentri Medical Center and Hospital, Inc. vs SEC En Banc Case No. 09-13-301 Gentri Doctors Hospital, Inc Decision

Page 3 of 8 (2) there is no justification to require the Respondent-Appellant to change or modify its corporate name;

(3) "Gentri" should not have been considered a coined term; and

(4) the Decision directing the Respondent-Appellant to change or modify its corporate name should be reckoned not from the receipt of the assailed Decision but from the date the same becomes final and executory.

dated 11 October 2013, that there are no legal and factual grounds to merit the reversal of the Decision of the OGC as Petitioner-Appellee has complied with all the requisites under the law for the protection and exclusive use of its corporate name. The Petitioner-Appellee, on the other hand, argues, in its Reply Memorandum,"

Early Resolution', dated 25 July 2014, alleging that the damage and evil sought to be 2014, during ABS CBN's TV Patrol program that a child, who sustained wounds in the head after a concrete wall fell on him, was allegedly brought to the Petitioner-Appellee 's hospital which, unfortunately, could only manage to put a bandage on the child's head avoided has finally happened. This is due to the report of Doris Bigornia, on 16 July but refused to give further medical attention. As a result, the life of the child was lost. The Petitioner-Appellee asserts that the problem with Doris Bigronia's news report is that it was wrong. The child was never brought to its hospital but to the Respondent- Appellant 's. On 24 August 2014, the Petitioner-Appellee, filed an Urgent Second Motion for

reiterating the allegations and arguments in its Memorandum on Appeal and attaching Appearance/Supplemental/Reply Memorandum11, dated 27 September 2014, substantially additional pieces of documentary evidence pertaining to Certificates of Incorporation of several companies using the word "Gentri" as part of their corporate names. On 29 September 2014, the Respondent-Appellant filed an

Hence, the issues to be resolved are as follows:

the claims and allegations of the Petitioner-Appellee: (1) whether or not the Petition should be granted on the basis of

similar to the Petitioner-Appellee 's corporate name; Appellant to change or modify its corporate name for being confusingly (2) whether or not there is a need to require the Respondent.

Fied on : : Novemper 20:3. Recorcs. p. 98. RecoGs..20 Recorcs.p.3:

Gentri Medical Center and Hospital, Inc. vs. SEC En Banc Case No. 09-13-301 Gentri Doctors Hospital, Inc. Decision

Page 4 of 8

coined term; and (3) whether or not the OGC erred in finding that "Gentri" is a

Appellant to change or modify its corporate name. (4) whether or not the OGC erred when it directed the Respondent-

issue. At the onset, it is enlightening to quote the assailed Decision of the OGC, which declares: Before proceeding with the substantial issues, we first dispose of the procedural

file pleadings which is prohibited under Section 3-6, Rule III of the Rules." Rejoinder violates the Rules since it is akin to a motion for extension of time to "Lastly, as correctly pointed out by the respondent, the Motion to File

to Amend Pleading. Thus, the Commission must expunge from the records Respondent- Appellant's Appearance/Supplemental/Reply Memorandum for being a prohibited prohibited pleadings under the 2006 Rules as well as the OGC's Decision, still filed the said Appearance/Supplemental/Reply Memorandum which is akin to a Motion for Leave pleading. Stated otherwise, the Respondent-Appellant, despite being cognizant of the

Petitioner-Appellee. Appellant contends that the allegations in the Petition were never substantiated or proven and that no affidavit, competent or admissible evidence was presented or offered by the We now resolve the substantial issues. Relative to the first issue, the Respondent.

provides: It is suffice to state that Section 1, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules on Evidence

"Rule 129 WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the law of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions." SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. -- A court shall take

Gentri Medical Center and Hospital, Inc. vs. SEC En Banc Case No. 09-13-301 Gentri Doctors Hospital, Inc Page 5 of 8 Decision

In connection thereto, Section 1-4, Rule I of the 2006 Rules provides:

process, the proceedings before the Commission shall be summary in nature and the technical rules of evidence used in the regular courts shall, whenever practicable, be suppletory to these rules. "SEC 1-4. Nature of Proceedings. -- Subject to the requirements of due

instant case, the Commission is an agency of the Department of Finance which, in turn, is establish the rule that the Commission shall take judicial notice of the official acts of the executive department of the Philippines, without the introduction of evidence. In the part of the Executive Department of the Philippines. The Commission's official acts, Commission to recognize its own official acts and issuances like the Petitioner- requisite of Section 1 8 of the Corporation Code which provides: therefore, should be given judicial notice. In other words, it is mandatory for the Appellee's Certificate of Incorporation dated 14 January 2011, as well as the Respondent-Appellant's Certificate of Incorporation dated 30 March 2011. Thus, the Petitioner-Appellee, being a prior registrant of its corporate name, has satisfied the first Contrary to the Respondent-Appellant's assertion, the foregoing provisions

(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 (c) patently deceptive, confusing or contrary to existing (a) identical or existing corporation or to any other name already Iaw protected by law; or

occur. This hardly merits consideration. of the parties are not similar to such an extent that confusion to the public is likely to As to the second issue, the Respondent-Appellant avers that the corporate names

name has actually happened. This was when Doris Bigornia, on 16 July 2014, reported on TV Patrol that a patient was brought to Petitioner-Appellee's hospital. However, Motion for Early Resolution, that actual confusion on the Petitioner-Appellee's corporate Petitioner-Appellee presented evidence!3 showing that the patient was in fact brought to We agree with the Petitioner-Appellee when it showed, in its Urgent Second

Ocooer20o2.cingPhilipsExport BV.etalcount ofppeas.etal.GR.No.966.2:Feoruary mtustriar Refactories Corporation of the Phiipones Count of ppeals.et al.CR No 22:74.3

Brec6y20:4,Recorcs.p.109

Gentri Medical Center and Hospital, Inc. vs. SEC En Banc Case No. 09-13-301 Gentri Doctors Hospital, Inc. Page 6 of 8 Decis ion

confusion in corporate names was aggravated by the fact that parties are engaged in the Respondent-Appellant's hospital. This indicates that the corporate names of the parties the same or substantially the same as that of another corporation." are confusingly similar to each other so as mislead a person of ordinary care and discretion in identifying the hospital that refused admittance of the patient who died. The Coffee Partners, Inc. v. San Francisco Coffee & Roastery, Inc.14, it was held that the same line of business, which is the operation and management of hospital. Certainly, in "likelihood of confusion is higher in cases where the business of the one corporation is

similarity in corporate names. It is sufficient that the use of corporate name is likely to produce deception or confusion. In this case, the public will likely be confused as to hundred (500) meters apart from each other15. Thus, the Respondent-Appellant's corporate name is confusingly similar to that of the Petitioner-Appellee which, according to the OGC, is the prior registrant of its corporate name. which hospital they want to go to considering that the buildings are located at around five Besides, it is unnecessary to show that anyone had actually been misled by

their town. The Respondent-Appellant further points out that "Gentri" should be considered a geographical term which is incapable of exclusive appropriation. coined term, as it is a popular term used by residents of General Trias, Cavite to address As to the third issue, Respondent-Appellant maintains that Gentri" is not a

examine first the settled rule in trademark law on generic, descriptive and suggestive terms, to wit: In determining whether the term "Gentri" is geographic, it is appropriate to re-

name of an article or substance', or comprise the 'genus of which the particular product is a species', or are 'commonly used as the name or description of a kind of goods', or 'imply reference to every member of a genus and the exclusion of individuating characters', or 'refer to the basic nature of the wares or services provided_rather than to the more idiosyncratic characteristics of a particular product', and are not legally protectable. On the other hand, a term is descriptive and therefore invalid as a trademark if, as understood in its normal and natural sense, it 'forthwith conveys the characteristics, functions, qualities or ingredients forthwith.conveys an immediate ideaofthe ingredients,qualities or characteristics_of the goods,' or if it clearly denotes what goods or services are provided in such a way that the consumer does not have to exercise powers of perception or imagination. of a product to one who has never seen it and does not know what it is', or 'if it "Generic terms are those which constitute 'the common descriptive

G..o.69504,Ma3.200 Paagaph 36, Reply Memorandum,Rec orcsD.89

Gentri Medical Center and Hospital, Inc. vs. SEC En Banc Case No. 09-13-301 Gentri Doctors Hospital, Inc. Page 7 of 8 Decision

describe, something about the goods or services in connection with which they product, suggestive marks can thus be distinctive and are registrable."!? perception to reach a conclusion_ as to the nature of the goods.' suggestive marks are capable of shedding 'some light' upon certain characteristics of the goods or services in dispute, they nevertheless involve 'an element of incongruity. 'figurativeness,' or 'imaginative effort on the part of the observer." They 'are words, pictures, or other symbols that suggest, but do not directly. are used as marks' Suggestive terms are those which . . . require 'imagination, thought and 7 as they merely _give hint as to the quality or nature of the . While

refer to the basic or inherent nature of the medical services being provided by Petitioner- Appellee; neither is it descriptive in the sense that it does not clearly convey an immediate idea of what Petitioner-Appellee's services are. The term "Gentri" is likewise not suggestive since the term will neither shed some light nor give a hint as to services being offered. In the instant case, the term "Gentri" is not generic in that it does not particularly.

Petitioner-Appellee's corporate name was used to identify the place or geographic location of General Trias, Cavite. We cannot take judicial notice of the same. This is business. Furthermore, no evidence was presented by the parties showing that, indeed, contraction of some other words like gentrification or gentry. because the term "Gentri", just as it is, cannot directly and exclusively be attributed as a contraction of the town of General Trias in Cavite where the parties have set up their Conversely, Petitioner-Appellee's use of the term "Gentri" may be considered as a Petitioner-Appellee used "Gentri as an abbreviation of General Trias, Cavite. Now, as to Respondent-Appellant's assertion that the term "Gentri" in the

the other words in Petitioner-Appellee's corporate name in the particular order or arrangement in which they appear. In Coffee Partners, Inc., the Supreme Court acknowledged that geographic or generic words are not, per se, subject to exclusive and not made on account of its business location. Therefore, we agree with the findings appropriation, however, the combination of words comprising as a trade name used in business is protected against infringement on matters related to the same business to avoid confusing or deceiving the public. Accordingly, insofar as matters related to medical institution is concerned, the combination and arrangement of the words "Gentri Medical Center and Hospital" in Petitioner-Appellee's name is protected by law against infringement to avoid confusing or deceiving the public. In fact, it is more reasonable to conclude that Petitioner-Appellees choice of the term "Gentri" was arbitrary and fanciful Moreover, a unique corporate name was formed when "Gentri" is used alongside

American Wire anc Capie Co.vs.Direcox of Paens a Centra Bananaw industriesG.R.No.L-26557 Fe5ruaiy 8.1970 MCys Desk Encycopedia of inteectuPropey.99Ed.p.322 Vcene 3.Amac ocie es Prodts NestieS.A.,e.vs. Coof Apese.G.R.No.202.4Ari. 200 Tracemarks Urce 7CE : Property Code 27 (:999 Edition}, ciin

Gentri Medical Center and Hospital, Inc. vs. SEC En Banc Case No. 09-13-301 Gentri Doctors Hospital, Inc. Page 8 of 8 Decision

business. of the OGC that the term "Gentri" is a coined term with respect to Petitioner-Appellees

yet attained finality. The OGC, in so doing, merely compelled Respondent-Appellant to person, firm, or entity has acquired a prior right to the use of the said firm name or one Respondent-Appellant. Certainly, the OGC has not erred when it ordered Respondent- Appellant to change its corporate name despite the fact that the assailed Decision has not abide by one of the SEC Guidelines19 in the approval of partnership and corporate names. namely its undertaking and willingness to change its corporate name in the event another deceptively or confusingly similar to it. All of the foregoing considered, we need not belabor the fourth issue raised by.

The Decision dated 22 August 2013 of the Office of the General Counsel is hereby AFFIRMED. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Mandaluyong City, 23 April 2015

TERESITA J. HERBOSA Chairperson

aas Marat.d MANUEL HUI Commissioner RTO B. GAITE ANTONIETA F. IBE Commissioner

EPHYRO LUIS B. AMATONG 0810m07 A

Commissioner B IASI ommissioner JAMES G. VITERBO

SEC Nem0:acum Ccuiar No. 05-08. series of 2008