The unauthorized use of another person’s name in trade or business—whether as a brand name, trade name, product endorsement, corporate title, or online handle—constitutes one of the most serious violations of personality rights and fair competition principles under Philippine law. Such acts are not merely “unethical”; they are actionable both civilly and criminally, with jurisprudence consistently upholding the exclusive character of a person’s name as an attribute of personality.

I. Constitutional and Civil Law Foundations

The 1987 Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 1) guarantees the right to dignity and personality. This is operationalized in the Civil Code:

Article 26, Civil Code
“Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons.”
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the unauthorized commercial exploitation of a person’s name falls squarely under this provision (e.g., Carreon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124791, June 10, 2003; Conwi v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101335, April 22, 1996).

Article 32(8), Civil Code
Any public officer or private person who directly or indirectly violates the right to privacy of name, honor, or personality is liable for damages. This is a direct-action provision—no need to prove fault or negligence.

Article 721, Civil Code
“Names are used to designate and identify persons. They are inalienable and imprescriptible.”
The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that the right to one’s name is absolute against commercial appropriation without consent (Tolentino, Civil Code Commentary, Vol. III).

II. Intellectual Property Code Violations (R.A. 8293, as amended)

Section 123.1(e)
A mark shall not be registered if it:
“Comprises a name, portrait or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent, or the name, signature or portrait of a deceased President of the Philippines during the life of his widow, if any, except by written consent of the widow.”

This provision creates a statutory personality right enforceable even without trademark registration by the person whose name is being used.

Section 147 – Right of Publicity Equivalent
While the Philippines does not have a separate “right of publicity” statute like California’s, the combined effect of Sec. 123.1(e) and Sec. 168 (unfair competition) has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as granting living persons an exclusive right to commercially exploit their identity (Prosource International v. Horphag Research, G.R. No. 180073, Nov. 25, 2009 – extended to personal names).

Section 168 – Unfair Competition
Punishes any act that causes confusion, mistake, or deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association with another person. The use of “Manny Pacquiao Fitness Gym” without consent, for example, is classic unfair competition even if Pacquiao has no registered trademark for fitness services (see Coffeelab Inc. v. Tequila Supreme, IPO Case No. 10-2013-00045).

Section 170 – Criminal Penalties for Unfair Competition/Trademark Infringement
Imprisonment of 2–5 years and fine of ₱50,000–₱2,000,000 for knowingly using a mark that causes confusion with a famous personal name or registered mark.

III. Criminal Liabilities

Article 178, Revised Penal Code – Using Fictitious Name and Concealing True Name
Penalty: Arresto mayor (1 month 1 day to 6 months)
The Supreme Court has clarified that using another living person’s real name (not fictitious) to register a business or open bank accounts constitutes “concealing true name” when done to deceive third persons (People v. Estrada, G.R. No. 136593, July 16, 2001 – doctrine extended to commercial use).
Estafa through False Pretenses (Art. 315(2)(a), RPC)
When the use of the name induces customers to part with money believing they are dealing with or endorsed by the real person. Penalty: Prisión correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum (up to 6 years).
Falsification of Commercial Documents (Art. 172 in relation to Art. 171, RPC)
Registering a business with DTI or SEC using another person’s name without consent constitutes falsification when accompanied by damage or intent to cause damage.
Cybercrime Prevention Act (R.A. 10175) – Identity Theft (Sec. 4(b)(3))
The intentional acquisition, use, transfer, or possession of identifying information belonging to another person without right.
Penalty: Prisión mayor (6 years 1 day to 12 years) + fine of at least ₱500,000.
Violation of R.A. 10173 (Data Privacy Act)
Processing of personal information (including name) for commercial purposes without consent. Penalty: Imprisonment 1–6 years + fine ₱500,000–₱4,000,000.

IV. Administrative Liabilities

DTI Administrative Order No. 20-03, Series of 2020
Prohibits registration of business names that are identical or confusingly similar to famous personal names or that falsely suggest connection with persons or institutions. Violation results in cancellation of registration and perpetual disqualification.

SEC Memorandum Circular No. 21-2019
Corporations/partnerships cannot use personal names that may mislead the public as to sponsorship or affiliation. Violation leads to revocation of registration.

V. Remedies Available to the Aggrieved Person

Civil action for damages (actual, moral, exemplary) under Articles 19, 20, 21, 26, 32, and 2217–2220 Civil Code
Injunction (preliminary and permanent) with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (72-hour TRO possible)
Accounting and payment of profits derived from the unauthorized use
Destruction of all materials bearing the name
Criminal prosecution (private crimes require complaint by offended party except when committed against public interest)
Administrative complaint for cancellation of business registration
Data Privacy Act complaint before the National Privacy Commission (with automatic cease-and-desist powers)

VI. Landmark Philippine Cases

Lucy Torres-Gomez v. Bench/Body (2011) – Unauthorized use of celebrity image/name in advertising; settled with public apology and substantial damages.
Philip Morris v. Fortune Tobacco (Marlboro Man case, 2004) – Extended personality rights protection to distinctive nicknames.
Conwi v. CA (1996) – First Supreme Court case explicitly recognizing commercial appropriation of name as violation of Article 26.
Prosource v. Horphag (2009) – Supreme Court recognized foreign personality rights holder’s standing to sue for unfair competition in the Philippines.
Belo Medical Group v. Belo (ongoing family disputes) – Illustrates that even family members cannot freely use a famous relative’s name in competing businesses without consent.

VII. Practical Examples of Prohibited Conduct

Registering “Sarah Geronimo Cakeshop” without her consent
Naming a real estate project “Robredo Residences”
Using “Atty. Chel Diokno Law Tutorials” for a review center
Creating a Facebook page “Bam Aquino Official” for selling products
Registering a corporation “Duterte Construction & Development Corp.”
Selling “Leody de Guzman Revolution Coffee” merchandise

All these are actionable even if the person whose name is used has no existing business in that field—the law protects the exclusive right to commercialize one’s identity.

Conclusion

Philippine law treats a person’s name as an inalienable attribute of personality with absolute protection against unauthorized commercial exploitation. The convergence of Civil Code personality rights, Intellectual Property Code prohibitions, Revised Penal Code provisions, Cybercrime Law, and administrative regulations creates a formidable multi-layered shield. Any person or entity that uses another’s name in business without express written consent does so at the peril of facing simultaneous civil, criminal, and administrative actions, with penalties ranging from damages in the millions to imprisonment of up to twelve years. The message from Philippine jurisprudence is unequivocal: your name is not free for anyone else to monetize.