2/27/2020 G.R. No. 175278 | GSIS Family Bank — Thrift Bank v. BPI Family Bank 2/27/2020 G.R. No.

ift Bank v. BPI Family Bank 2/27/2020 G.R. No. 175278 | GSIS Family Bank — Thrift Bank v. BPI Family Bank

applications. Thus, petitioner operates under the corporate name "GSIS

9

Family Bank — a Thrift Bank," pursuant to the DTI Certificate of

Registration No. 741375 and the Monetary Board Circular approval. 10
Respondent BPI Family Bank was a product of the merger between
the Family Bank and Trust Company (FBTC) and the Bank of the Philippine
THIRD DIVISION
Islands (BPI). 11 On June 27, 1969, the Gotianum family registered with the
SEC the corporate name "Family First Savings Bank," which was amended
[G.R. No. 175278. September 23, 2015.]
to "Family Savings Bank," and then later to "Family Bank and Trust
Company." 12 Since its incorporation, the bank has been commonly known
GSIS FAMILY BANK — THRIFT BANK [Formerly
as "Family Bank." In 1985, Family Bank merged with BPI, and the latter
Comsavings Bank, Inc.], petitioner, vs. BPI FAMILY BANK,
acquired all the rights, privileges, properties, and interests of Family Bank,
respondent.
including the right to use names, such as "Family First Savings Bank,"
"Family Bank," and "Family Bank and Trust Company." BPI Family Savings
Bank was registered with the SEC as a wholly-owned subsidiary of BPI.
DECISION
BPI Family Savings Bank then registered with the Bureau of Domestic
Trade the trade or business name "BPI Family Bank," and acquired a
reputation and goodwill under the name. 13
JARDELEZA, J : p

Proceedings before the SEC

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by GSIS Family Bank
— Thrift Bank 1 assailing the Court of Appeals Decision 2 dated March 29, Eventually, it reached respondent's attention that petitioner is using
2006 (Decision) and Resolution 3 dated October 23, 2006 which denied or attempting to use the name "Family Bank." Thus, on March 8, 2002,
respondent petitioned the SEC Company Registration and Monitoring
petitioner's petition for review of the Securities and Exchange Commission
Department (SEC CRMD) to disallow or prevent the registration of the
Decision dated February 22, 2005 (SEC En Banc Decision). The SEC En
name "GSIS Family Bank" or any other corporate name with the words
Banc Decision 4 prohibited petitioner from using the word "Family" as part
"Family Bank" in it. Respondent claimed exclusive ownership to the name
of its corporate name and ordered petitioner to delete the word from its
"Family Bank," having acquired the name since its purchase and merger
name. 5
with Family Bank and Trust Company way back 1985. 14 Respondent also
Facts alleged that through the years, it has been known as "BPI Family Bank" or
Petitioner was originally organized as Royal Savings Bank and simply "Family Bank" both locally and internationally. As such, it has
started operations in 1971. Beginning 1983 and 1984, petitioner acquired a reputation and goodwill under the name, not only with clients
encountered liquidity problems. On July 9, 1984, it was placed under here and abroad, but also with correspondent and competitor banks, and
receivership and later temporarily closed by the Central Bank of the the public in general. 15
Philippines. Two (2) months after its closure, petitioner reopened and was Respondent prayed the SEC CRMD to disallow or prevent the
renamed Comsavings Bank, Inc. under the management of the registration of the name "GSIS Family Bank" or any other corporate name
Commercial Bank of Manila. 6 with the words "Family Bank" should the same be presented for
In 1987, the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) acquired registration. Respondent likewise prayed the SEC CRMD to issue an order
petitioner from the Commercial Bank of Manila. Petitioner's management directing petitioner or any other corporation to change its corporate name if
and control was thus transferred to GSIS. 7 To improve its marketability to the names have already been registered with the SEC. 16
the public, especially to the members of the GSIS, petitioner sought The SEC CRMD was thus confronted with the issue of whether the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approval to change its names BPI Family Bank and GSIS Family Bank are confusingly similar as
corporate name to "GSIS Family Bank, a Thrift Bank." 8 Petitioner likewise to require the amendment of the name of the latter corporation. IAETDc

applied with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and Bangko
The SEC CRMD declared that upon the merger of FBTC with the
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) for authority to use "GSIS Family Bank, a Thrift
BPI in 1985, the latter acquired the right to the use of the name of the
Bank" as its business name. The DTI and the BSP approved the
absorbed corporation. Thus, BPI Family Bank has a prior right to the use of
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/60546/print 1/15 https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/60546/print 2/15
2/27/2020 G.R. No. 175278 | GSIS Family Bank — Thrift Bank v. BPI Family Bank 2/27/2020 G.R. No. 175278 | GSIS Family Bank — Thrift Bank v. BPI Family Bank

the name Family Bank in the banking industry, arising from its long and The Court of Appeals ruled that the approvals by the BSP and by the
extensive nationwide use, coupled with its registration with the Intellectual DTI of petitioner's application to use the name "GSIS Family Bank" do not
Property Office (IPO) of the name "Family Bank" as its trade name. constitute authority for its lawful and valid use. It said that the SEC has
Applying the rule of "priority in registration" based on the legal maxim first absolute jurisdiction, supervision and control over all corporations. 24 The
in time, first in right, the SEC CRMD concluded that BPI has the Court of Appeals held that respondent was entitled to the exclusive use of
preferential right to the use of the name "Family Bank." More, GSIS and the corporate name because of its prior adoption of the name "Family
Comsavings Bank were then fully aware of the existence and use of the Bank" since 1969. 25 There is confusing similarity in the corporate names
name "Family Bank" by FBTC prior to the latter's merger with BPI. 17 because "[c]onfusion as to the possible association with GSIS might arise if
The SEC CRMD also held that there exists a confusing similarity we were to allow Comsavings Bank to add its parent company's acronym,
between the corporate names BPI Family Bank and GSIS Family Bank. It 'GSIS' to 'Family Bank.' This is true especially considering both companies
explained that although not identical, the corporate names are indisputably belong to the banking industry. Proof of actual confusion need not be
similar, as to cause confusion in the public mind, even with the exercise of shown. It suffices that confusion is probably or likely to occur." 26 The Court
reasonable care and observation, especially so since both corporations are of Appeals also ruled out forum shopping because not all the requirements
engaged in the banking business. 18 of litis pendentia are present. 27
In a decision 19 dated May 19, 2003, the SEC CRMD said, The dispositive portion of the decision read,
PREMISES CONSIDERED respondent GSIS FAMILY BANK WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review is hereby
is hereby directed to refrain from using the word "Family" as part of DISMISSED for lack of merit. 28
its name and make good its commitment to change its name by
After its Motion for Reconsideration was denied, 29 petitioner brought
deleting or dropping the subject word from its corporate name within
the decision to this Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari. 30
[thirty (30) days] from the date of actual receipt hereof. 20
Issues in the Petition
Petitioner appealed 21 the decision to the SEC En Banc, which
denied the appeal, and upheld the SEC CRMD in the SEC En Banc Petitioner raised the following issues in its petition:
Decision. 22 Petitioner elevated the SEC En Banc Decision to the Court of I. The Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the SEC
Appeals, raising the following issues: Resolution finding the word "Family" not generic despite its
1. Whether the use by GSIS Family Bank of the words "Family unregistered status with the IPO of the Bureau of Patents and
Bank" is deceptively and confusingly similar to the name BPI the use by GSIS-Family Bank in its corporate name of the
Family Bank; words "[F]amily [B]ank" as deceptive and [confusingly similar]
to the name BPI Family Bank; 31
2. Whether the use by Comsavings Bank of "GSIS Family Bank"
as its business constitutes unfair competition; II. The Court of Appeals gravely erred when it ruled that the
respondent is not guilty of forum shopping despite the filing of
3. Whether BPI Family Bank is guilty of forum shopping;
three (3) similar complaints before the DTI and BSP and with
4. Whether the approval of the DTI and the BSP of petitioner's the SEC without the requisite certification of non-forum
application to use the name GSIS Family Bank constitutes its shopping attached thereto; 32
authority to the lawful and valid use of such trade name or
III. The Court of Appeals gravely erred when it completely
trade mark;
disregarded the opinion of the Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas that
5. Whether the application of respondent BPI Family Bank for the the use by the herein petitioner of the trade name GSIS Family
exclusive use of the name "Family Bank," a generic name, Bank — Thrift Bank is not similar or does not deceive or likely
though not yet approved by IPO of the Bureau of Patents, has cause any deception to the public. 33
barred the GSIS Family Bank from using such trade mark or
name. 23 CTIEac
Court's Ruling
We uphold the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals Ruling
Section 18 of the Corporation Code provides,

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/60546/print 3/15 https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/60546/print 4/15

2/27/2020 G.R. No. 175278 | GSIS Family Bank — Thrift Bank v. BPI Family Bank 2/27/2020 G.R. No. 175278 | GSIS Family Bank — Thrift Bank v. BPI Family Bank

Section 18. Corporate name. — No corporate name may In this case, respondent was incorporated in 1969 as Family Savings
be allowed by the Securities and Exchange Commission if the Bank and in 1985 as BPI Family Bank. Petitioner, on the other hand, was
proposed name is identical or deceptively or confusingly similar to incorporated as GSIS Family — Thrift Bank only in 2002, 38 or at least
that of any existing corporation or to any other name already seventeen (17) years after respondent started using its name. Following
protected by law or is patently deceptive, confusing or contrary to
the precedent in the IRCP case, we rule that respondent has the prior right
existing laws. When a change in the corporate name is approved,
over the use of the corporate name.
the Commission shall issue an amended certificate of incorporation
under the amended name. The second requisite in the Philips Export case likewise obtains on
two points: the proposed name is (a) identical or (b) deceptive or
In Philips Export B.V. v. Court of Appeals, 34 this Court ruled that to
confusingly similar to that of any existing corporation or to any other name
fall within the prohibition of the law on the right to the exclusive use of a already protected by law.
corporate name, two requisites must be proven, namely: DcHSEa

On the first point (a), the words "Family Bank" present in both
petitioner and respondent's corporate name satisfy the requirement that
(1) that the complainant corporation acquired a prior right over there be identical names in the existing corporate name and the proposed
the use of such corporate name; and one. Respondent cannot justify its claim under Section 3 of the Revised
Guidelines in the Approval of Corporate and Partnership Names, 39 to wit:
(2) the proposed name is either
3. The name shall not be identical, misleading or confusingly
(a) identical or
similar to one already registered by another corporation or
(b) deceptive or confusingly similar to that of any existing partnership with the Commission or a sole proprietorship registered
corporation or to any other name already protected by with the Department of Trade and Industry.
law; or If the proposed name is similar to the name of a registered firm, the
(c) patently deceptive, confusing or contrary to existing proposed name must contain at least one distinctive word different
law. 35 from the name of the company already registered.

These two requisites are present in this case. On the first requisite of Section 3 states that if there be identical, misleading or confusingly
a prior right, Industrial Refractories Corporation of the Philippines v. Court similar name to one already registered by another corporation or
of Appeals (IRCP case) 36 is instructive. In that case, Refractories partnership with the SEC, the proposed name must contain at least one
distinctive word different from the name of the company already registered.
Corporation of the Philippines (RCP) filed before the SEC a petition to
To show contrast with respondent's corporate name, petitioner used the
compel Industrial Refractories Corporation of the Philippines (IRCP) to
words "GSIS" and "thrift." But these are not sufficiently distinct words that
change its corporate name on the ground that its corporate name is
differentiate petitioner's corporate name from respondent's. While "GSIS" is
confusingly similar with that of RCP's such that the public may be confused
merely an acronym of the proper name by which petitioner is identified, the
into believing that they are one and the same corporation. The SEC and
word "thrift" is simply a classification of the type of bank that petitioner is.
the Court of Appeals found for petitioner, and ordered IRCP to delete or
Even if the classification of the bank as "thrift" is appended to petitioner's
drop from its corporate name the word "Refractories." Upon appeal of
proposed corporate name, it will not make the said corporate name distinct
IRCP, this Court upheld the decision of the CA.
from respondent's because the latter is likewise engaged in the banking
Applying the priority of adoption rule to determine prior right, this business.
Court said that RCP has acquired the right to use the word "Refractories"
This Court used the same analysis in Ang mga Kaanib sa Iglesia ng
as part of its corporate name, being its prior registrant. In arriving at this
Dios Kay Kristo Hesus, H.S.K. sa Bansang Pilipinas, Inc. v. Iglesia ng Dios
conclusion, the Court considered that RCP was incorporated on October
13, 1976 and since then continuously used the corporate name Kay Cristo Jesus, Haligi at Suhay ng Katotohanan. 40 In that case, Iglesia
"Refractories Corp. of the Philippines." Meanwhile, IRCP only started using ng Dios Kay Cristo Jesus filed a case before the SEC to compel Ang mga
its corporate name "Industrial Refractories Corp. of the Philippines" when it Kaanib sa Iglesia ng Dios Kay Kristo Hesus to change its corporate name,
amended its Articles of Incorporation on August 23, 1985. 37 and to prevent it from using the same or similar name on the ground that
the same causes confusion among their members as well as the public.
Ang mga Kaanib sa Iglesia ng Dios Kay Kristo Hesus claimed that it
complied with SEC Memorandum Circular No. 14-2000 by adding not only
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/60546/print 5/15 https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/60546/print 6/15
2/27/2020 G.R. No. 175278 | GSIS Family Bank — Thrift Bank v. BPI Family Bank 2/27/2020 G.R. No. 175278 | GSIS Family Bank — Thrift Bank v. BPI Family Bank

two, but eight words to their registered name, to wit: "Ang Mga Kaanib" and Findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies, like the SEC, are
"Sa Bansang Pilipinas, Inc.," which effectively distinguished it from Iglesia generally accorded respect and even finality by this Court, if supported by
ng Dios Kay Cristo Jesus. This Court rejected the argument, thus: substantial evidence, in recognition of their expertise on the specific
The additional words "Ang Mga Kaanib" and "Sa Bansang matters under their consideration, more so if the same has been upheld by
Pilipinas, Inc." in petitioner's name are, as correctly observed by the the appellate court, as in this case. 48
SEC, merely descriptive of and also referring to the members, or Petitioner cannot argue that the word "family" is a generic or
kaanib, of respondent who are likewise residing in the Philippines. descriptive name, which cannot be appropriated exclusively by respondent.
These words can hardly serve as an effective differentiating
"Family," as used in respondent's corporate name, is not generic. Generic
medium necessary to avoid confusion or difficulty in distinguishing
marks are commonly used as the name or description of a kind of goods,
petitioner from respondent. This is especially so, since both
such as "Lite" for beer or "Chocolate Fudge" for chocolate soda drink.
petitioner and respondent corporations are using the same acronym
Descriptive marks, on the other hand, convey the characteristics, function,
— H.S.K.; not to mention the fact that both are espousing religious
qualities or ingredients of a product to one who has never seen it or does
beliefs and operating in the same place. . . . 41
not know it exists, such as "Arthriticare" for arthritis medication. 49
On the second point (b), there is a deceptive and confusing similarity
Under the facts of this case, the word "family" cannot be separated
between petitioner's proposed name and respondent's corporate name, as
from the word "bank." 50 In asserting their claims before the SEC up to the
found by the SEC. 42 In determining the existence of confusing similarity in
Court of Appeals, both petitioner and respondent refer to the phrase
corporate names, the test is whether the similarity is such as to mislead a
"Family Bank" in their submissions. This coined phrase, neither being
person using ordinary care and discrimination. 43 And even without such
generic nor descriptive, is merely suggestive and may properly be regarded
proof of actual confusion between the two corporate names, it suffices that
as arbitrary. Arbitrary marks are "words or phrases used as a mark that
confusion is probable or likely to occur. 44 appear to be random in the context of its use. They are generally
Petitioner's corporate name is "GSIS Family Bank — A Thrift Bank" considered to be easily remembered because of their arbitrariness. They
and respondent's corporate name is "BPI Family Bank." The only words are original and unexpected in relation to the products they endorse, thus,
that distinguish the two are "BPI," "GSIS," and "Thrift." The first two words becoming themselves distinctive." 51 Suggestive marks, on the other hand,
are merely the acronyms of the proper names by which the two "are marks which merely suggest some quality or ingredient of goods. . . .
corporations identify themselves; and the third word simply describes the The strength of the suggestive marks lies on how the public perceives the
classification of the bank. The overriding consideration in determining word in relation to the product or service." 52
whether a person, using ordinary care and discrimination, might be misled
is the circumstance that both petitioner and respondent are engaged in the In Ang v. Teodoro, 53 this Court ruled that the words "Ang Tibay" is
same business of banking. "The likelihood of confusion is accentuated in not a descriptive term within the meaning of the Trademark Law but rather
cases where the goods or business of one corporation are the same or a fanciful or coined phrase. 54 In so ruling, this Court considered the
substantially the same to that of another corporation." 45 SCaITA
etymology and meaning of the Tagalog words, "Ang Tibay" to determine
whether they relate to the quality or description of the merchandise to
Respondent alleged that upon seeing a Comsavings Bank branch which respondent therein applied them as trademark, thus:
with the signage "GSIS Family Bank" displayed at its premises, some of
We find it necessary to go into the etymology and meaning of
the respondent's officers and their clients began asking questions. These
the Tagalog words "Ang Tibay" to determine whether they are a
include whether GSIS has acquired Family Bank; whether there is a joint
descriptive term, i.e., whether they relate to the quality or
arrangement between GSIS and Family Bank; whether there is a joint
description of the merchandise to which respondent has applied
arrangement between BPI and GSIS regarding Family Bank; whether them as a trade-mark. The word "ang" is a definite article meaning
Comsavings Bank has acquired Family Bank; and whether there is there "the" in English. It is also used as an adverb, a contraction of the
an arrangement among Comsavings Bank, GSIS, BPI, and Family Bank word "anong" (what or how). For instance, instead of saying,
regarding BPI Family Bank and GSIS Family Bank. 46 The SEC made a "Anong ganda!" ("How beautiful!"), we ordinarily say, "Ang ganda!"
finding that "[i]t is not a remote possibility that the public may entertain the Tibay is a root word from which are derived the verb magpatibay (to
idea that a relationship or arrangement indeed exists between BPI and strengthen); the nouns pagkamatibay (strength, durability),
GSIS due to the use of the term 'Family Bank' in their corporate names." 47 katibayan (proof, support, strength), katibaytibayan (superior
strength); and the adjectives matibay (strong, durable, lasting),

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/60546/print 7/15 https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/60546/print 8/15

2/27/2020 G.R. No. 175278 | GSIS Family Bank — Thrift Bank v. BPI Family Bank 2/27/2020 G.R. No. 175278 | GSIS Family Bank — Thrift Bank v. BPI Family Bank

napakatibay (very strong), kasintibay or magkasintibay (as strong In implementing Section 18 of the Corporation Code of the
as, or of equal strength). The phrase "Ang Tibay" is an exclamation Philippines (BP 69), the following revised guidelines in the approval
denoting admiration of strength or durability. For instance, one who of corporate and partnership names are hereby adopted for the
tries hard but fails to break an object exclaims, "Ang tibay!" ("How information and guidance of all concerned:
strong!") It may also be used in a sentence thus, "Ang tibay ng
xxx xxx xxx
sapatos mo!" ("How durable your shoes are!") The phrase "ang
tibay" is never used adjectively to define or describe an object. One 15. Registrant corporations or partnership shall submit a letter
does not say, "ang tibay sapatos" or "sapatos ang tibay" to mean undertaking to change their corporate or partnership name in case
"durable shoes," but "matibay na sapatos" or "sapatos na matibay." another person or firm has acquired a prior right to the use of the
said firm name or the same is deceptively or confusingly similar to
one already registered unless this undertaking is already included
From all of this we deduce that "Ang Tibay" is not a as one of the provisions of the articles of incorporation or
descriptive term within the meaning of the Trade-Mark Law but partnership of the registrant. cAaDHT

rather a fanciful or coined phrase which may properly and legally be

The SEC, after finding merit in respondent's claims, can compel
appropriated as a trade-mark or trade-name. . . . 55 (Underscoring
petitioner to abide by its commitment "to change its corporate name in the
supplied).
event that another person, firm or entity has acquired a prior right to use of
The word "family" is defined as "a group consisting of parents and said name or one similar to it." 63
children living together in a household" or "a group of people related to one
Clearly, the only determination relevant to this case is that one made
another by blood or marriage." 56 Bank, on the other hand, is defined as "a
by the SEC in the exercise of its express mandate under the law. The BSP
financial establishment that invests money deposited by customers, pays it opinion invoked by petitioner even acknowledges that "the issue on
out when requested, makes loans at interest, and exchanges currency." 57 whether a proposed name is identical or deceptively similar to that of any of
By definition, there can be no expected relation between the word "family" existing corporation is matter within the official jurisdiction and competence
and the banking business of respondent. Rather, the words suggest that of the SEC." 64
respondent's bank is where family savings should be deposited. More, as
in the Ang case, the phrase "family bank" cannot be used to define an Judicial notice 65 may also be taken of the action of the IPO in
object. approving respondent's registration of the trademark "BPI Family Bank"
and its logo on October 17, 2008. The certificate of registration of a mark
Petitioner's argument that the opinion of the BSP and the certificate
shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration, the
of registration granted to it by the DTI constitute authority for it to use
registrant's ownership of the mark, and of the registrant's exclusive right to
"GSIS Family Bank" as corporate name is also untenable.
use the same in connection with the goods or services and those that are
The enforcement of the protection accorded by Section 18 of the related thereto specified in the certificate. 66
Corporation Code to corporate names is lodged exclusively in the SEC.
The jurisdiction of the SEC is not merely confined to the adjudicative Finally, we uphold the Court of Appeals' finding that the issue of
forum shopping was belatedly raised by petitioner and, thus, cannot
functions provided in Section 5 of the SEC Reorganization Act, 58 as
anymore be considered at the appellate stage of the proceedings.
amended. 59 By express mandate, the SEC has absolute jurisdiction,
Petitioner raised the issue of forum shopping for the first time only on
supervision and control over all corporations. 60 It is the SEC's duty to appeal. 67 Petitioner argued that the complaints filed by respondent did not
prevent confusion in the use of corporate names not only for the protection contain certifications against non-forum shopping, in violation of Section 5,
of the corporations involved, but more so for the protection of the public. It
Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. 68
has authority to de-register at all times, and under all circumstances
corporate names which in its estimation are likely to generate confusion. 61 In S.C. Megaworld Construction and Development Corporation vs.
Parada, 69 this Court said that objections relating to non-compliance with
The SEC 62 correctly applied Section 18 of the Corporation Code,
the verification and certification of non-forum shopping should be raised in
and Section 15 of SEC Memorandum Circular No. 14-2000, pertinent the proceedings below, and not for the first time on appeal. In that case,
portions of which provide: S.C. Megaworld argued that the complaint for collection of sum of money
should have been dismissed outright by the trial court on account of an
invalid non-forum shopping certification. It alleged that the Special Power of
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/60546/print 9/15 https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/60546/print 10/15
2/27/2020 G.R. No. 175278 | GSIS Family Bank — Thrift Bank v. BPI Family Bank 2/27/2020 G.R. No. 175278 | GSIS Family Bank — Thrift Bank v. BPI Family Bank

Attorney granted to Parada did not specifically include an authority for the 3. Resolution denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court
latter to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, thus of Appeals Decision dated March 29, 2006. Id. at 49.
rendering the complaint defective for violation of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 7 4. Id. at 89-90.
of the Rules of Court. On motion for reconsideration of the decision of the
Court of Appeals, petitioner raised for the first time, the issue of forum 5. Affirming the Decision of the SEC Company Registration and
shopping. The Court ruled against S.C. Megaworld, thus: Monitoring Department (SEC CRMD) dated May 19, 2003, id. at 70, 89-
90.
It is well-settled that no question will be entertained on
appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings below. Points of 6. Petition for Review on Certiorari, id. at 13.
law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of 7. Id.
the lower court, administrative agency or quasi-judicial body,
need not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be 8. Petition for Review, id. at 94.
raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of 9. Id. at 95.
fairness and due process impel this rule. Any issue raised for the
first time on appeal is barred by estoppel. 70 10. Id. at 38.

In this case, the fact that respondent filed a case before the DTI was 11. Id. at 39.
made known to petitioner 71 long before the SEC rendered its decision. Yet, 12. Id. at 38-39.
despite its knowledge, petitioner failed to question the alleged forum 13. Id. at 39.
shopping before the SEC. The exceptions to the general rule that forum
shopping should be raised in the earliest opportunity, as explained in the 14. Rollo, p. 50.
cited case of Young v. Keng Seng, 72 do not obtain in this case. 15. Id. at 51.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of 16. Id.
Appeals dated March 29, 2006 is hereby AFFIRMED.
17. SEC Decision, Rollo, pp. 67-68.
SO ORDERED. HCaDIS

18. Id. at 68.

Velasco, Jr., Peralta, Villarama, Jr. and Perez, * JJ., concur.
19. Rollo, pp. 65-70.
Footnotes 20. Id. at 70.
* Designated as Acting Member in view of the leave of absence of 21. Id. at 71-81.
Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, per Special Order No. 2084
dated June 29, 2015. 22. Id. at 90.

1. Petitioner "GSIS Family Bank — Thrift Bank" is sometimes referred to 23. Id. at 41-42.
as "Comsavings Bank, Inc." as in SC Resolution dated December 06, 24. Id. at 42-43.
2006, rollo, p. 7; "GSIS Family Bank — A Thrift Bank (Formerly
Comsavings Bank, Inc.)" as in SC Resolution dated February 05, 2007, 25. Id. at 45-46.
id. at 117; "Comsavings Bank, Inc. (Operating under the trade name 26. Rollo, p. 46.
GSIS Family Bank — A Thrift Bank)" as in Court of Appeals Decision
dated March 29, 2006, and in SEC En Banc Decision dated February 22, 27. Id. at 43-44.
2005, id. at 38 and 89, respectively. For uniformity, we adopt the name 28. Id. at 47.
"GSIS Family Bank — Thrift Bank" as used in the SC Resolutions dated
October 17, 2007 and January 28, 2008, id. at 131 and 139, respectively. 29. Resolution dated October 23, 2006, id. at 49.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Santiago Javier Ranada, with Associate 30. Id. at 9-36.
Justices Roberto A. Barrios and Mario L. Guariña III, concurring. Rollo, 31. Id. at 17.
pp. 38-47.
32. Id. at 25.
33. Id. at 30.
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/60546/print 11/15 https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/60546/print 12/15