G.R. No. L-54580 December 29, 1987
ARMCO STEEL CORPORATION (OF THE PHILIPPINES), petitioner, vs. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ARMCO STEEL CORPORATION (of Ohio, U.S.A.) and ARMCO MARSTEEL ALLOY CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

ARMCO Steel Corporation (Ohio, U.S.A.) held a registered trademark for “ARMCO” in the Philippines. It later acquired 40% of Marsteel Alloy Company, Inc., which subsequently changed its name to ARMCO-Marsteel Alloy Corporation. Both entities manufactured steel products. Subsequently, ARMCO Steel Corporation (Philippines) was incorporated, engaging in a similar line of business involving steel. ARMCO-Ohio and ARMCO-Marsteel petitioned the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to compel the Philippine corporation to change its corporate name due to confusing similarity.
The SEC, in a 1975 order, ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering ARMCO-Philippines to amend its articles to remove “ARMCO” from its name. This order became final and executory after motions for reconsideration were denied for being filed out of time and an appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed for being perfected beyond the reglementary period. Despite this, ARMCO-Philippines later amended its articles to change its name to “ARMCO Structures, Inc.,” which the SEC approved. The SEC, however, subsequently issued orders demanding compliance with its original 1975 directive and initiated contempt proceedings, leading to the current petition.

ISSUE

Whether the SEC erred in not declaring its 1975 order functus officio after the petitioner changed its corporate name to “ARMCO Structures, Inc.” with the SEC’s own approval.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The legal logic is anchored on the finality of the SEC’s 1975 order. That order, which found the names “ARMCO Steel Corporation (Philippines)” and “ARMCO Steel Corporation (Ohio)” to be identical and likely to cause public confusion, had long become final and executory. The subsequent approval by the SEC of the amended name “ARMCO Structures, Inc.” did not nullify or satisfy the final order, which specifically required the removal of “ARMCO.” The Court held that the petitioner’s attempt to retain “ARMCO” in its new name was a circumvention of the final order. The principle of finality of judgments precludes the re-litigation of the issue of confusing similarity, which was conclusively settled in the 1975 SEC order. The SEC’s subsequent orders for execution of that final judgment were merely ministerial and not subject to appeal, as to allow otherwise would result in endless litigation. The petition was thus a dilatory tactic to evade a final directive.