PHILIPS EXPERT V. CA

206 SCRA 457

FACTS:

Petitioner filed an action against private respondent for the use of the latter of a corporate name confusingly similar with petitioner’s.

HELD:

Under the corporation code, no corporate name may be allowed by the SEC if the proposed name is identical or deceptively or confusingly similar to that of any existing corporation or to any other name already protected by law or is patently deceptive, confusing or contrary to existing laws. The policy behind this provision is to avoid fraud upon the public, which would have the occasion to deal with the entity concerned, the evasion of legal obligations and duties, and the reduction of difficulties of administration and supervision over corporations.

The corporate names of private respondents are identical or deceptively or confusingly similar to that of petitioner’s.