Adama Resorts and Hotels, Inc. vs. Prime Smartech Appliances Corporation

Commonality of a dominant feature in competing marks does not by itself establish a likelihood of confusion; under the Kolin 2-2021 multifactor test, the similarity of the marks and the relatedness of the goods or services are separate statutory factors, and hotel and resort services are not so related to air conditioners as to bar registration of the latter’s mark.

Adama Resorts and Hotels, Inc. and Prime Smartech Appliances Corporation are both Philippine corporations; Adama is engaged in the hotel and resort business, while Prime distributes and sells electric appliances. The dispute concerns the registrability of a trademark under the Intellectual Property Code, which bars registration of a mark identical with a prior mark in respect of closely related goods and services, and of a mark that nearly resembles a prior mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion. The competing marks are Adama’s KURA HOTEL and KURA RESORT marks and Prime’s KURA mark for air conditioners.

Adama Resorts and Hotels, Inc. and Prime Smartech Appliances Corporation are both Philippine corporations. Adama is engaged in the hotel and resort business, while Prime is engaged in the distribution and sale of electric appliances. On May 5, 2019, Adama registered the trademarks KURA HOTEL and KURA RESORT with the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines under Nice product class 32 (beer and certain non-alcoholic beverages) and Nice service classes 39 (transport, packaging and storage of goods, travel arrangement), 41 (education, training, entertainment, sporting and cultural activities), 43 (provision of food and drink, temporary accommodation), and 45 (personal and social services). On April 21, 2020, Prime applied for registration of the trademark KURA under product class 11 (air conditioners).

Adama opposed Prime’s application, arguing that Prime’s mark is confusingly similar to its KURA HOTEL and KURA RESORT marks because they share the same dominant feature—the word KURA—and use almost identical font styles. The word KURA dominates all marks both visually and aurally, such that they will all look and sound like KURA to an ordinary purchaser, more so since Prime’s mark is for a product widely used in Adama’s business. Adama further claimed that registration of Prime’s mark would cause both product and source confusion, since air conditioners are related to the hotel and resort business; ordinary purchasers may mistake Prime’s air conditioners as being made by Adama, and Adama’s hotels and resorts as being operated by Prime.

Prime answered that its mark is dissimilar to Adama’s marks in terms of appearance, style, and composition. The likelihood of confusion is negligible because air conditioners and hospitality services are sold in different ways.

The IPOPHL Bureau of Legal Affairs adjudicator sustained Adama’s opposition, finding that the KURA element dominates all other elements in the marks and is the one most likely to be processed and retained in the minds of ordinary purchasers. Confusion was still likely despite the difference in product class, as KURA is a coined word with no lexical content, and no other Philippine-registered mark uses it for any other product class. Prime appealed, arguing that KURA is not a coined word because it has meanings in several languages; that the adjudicator disregarded the overall appearance of the competing marks; that it failed to apply the holistic test; and that it found a likelihood of confusion despite the lack of direct competition and relation between the products. Adama riposted that its marketing team coined KURA with no knowledge of or intent to refer to its meaning in any language, so its marks are arbitrary; that the holistic test has been abandoned; and that there is a likelihood of confusion of goods and business despite dissimilarities in the main features and product coverage, since air conditioners are part of the service class covered by Adama’s marks and difference in product coverage does not preclude confusing similarity.

The IPOPHL-BLA Director dismissed Prime’s appeal, affirming the adjudicator’s reasoning that there is a likelihood of confusion because the competing marks share the dominant feature KURA and pertain to connected products. Prime elevated the matter to the IPOPHL Office of the Director General, asserting that the holistic test may still be applied and that there is no likelihood of confusion since air conditioners are not necessarily related to the hotel and resort business; Prime also pointed to the weakness of Adama’s marks, claiming that there are 52 active registered marks containing the word KURA under Nice class 43 in the World Intellectual Property Organization trademark database, while there are only three such marks under Nice class 11. The IPOPHL-ODG granted Prime’s appeal, finding no likelihood of confusion because air conditioners are not within the normal potential expansion of Adama’s business and because the parties have different product lines and businesses. The ODG reasoned that it is uncommon for a hotel establishment to expand into electronic products or cooling apparatus, that ordinary consumers are more likely to be more cautious in purchasing air-conditioning apparatus, and that a casual buyer is unlikely to associate an air-conditioning apparatus with the services provided by a luxury hotel and resort.

Adama filed a Rule 43 petition with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the protection afforded by its marks should extend to air conditioners under the normal expansion of business principle because its business includes the provision of good ventilation and comfort to its clientele, which necessarily includes the usage of air conditioning units in tropical countries such as the Philippines; that the ODG failed to consider that Prime’s mark shares the same dominant feature as its marks; and that there is a likelihood of business or source confusion since Adama’s marks cover luxury hotels and resorts where air conditioning is a main feature. Prime commented that the protection afforded by Adama’s marks should extend only to the product classes covered by its Certificate of Registration; that the ODG correctly ruled that the parties’ products are unrelated; that the marks are not confusingly similar under the holistic test; and that the ODG correctly found no likelihood of confusion given the lack of relation between the parties’ products, the sophistication of the prospective consumers, and the existence of marks under the same service classes in other jurisdictions that also use the word KURA. The Court of Appeals found that the parties’ products are unrelated; that air conditioners are not within the normal potential expansion of Adama’s business; that it is uncommon for a hotel business to expand into electronic products such as air-conditioners; that Adama unduly conflated the provision of ventilation with the sale and distribution of air conditioners; that there was no proof Prime knew about Adama’s marks when it registered its own KURA mark; and that ordinary purchasers would exercise greater prudence in buying relatively expensive, infrequently purchased air conditioners. It also found that the competing marks share KURA as their dominant feature but have distinct ancillary features.

• Confusing Similarity: Adama argued that Prime’s mark is confusingly similar to its KURA HOTEL and KURA RESORT marks because they share the same dominant feature, the word KURA, and use almost identical font styles; the word KURA dominates all marks visually and aurally, such that they will all look and sound like KURA to an ordinary purchaser.
• Product and Source Confusion: Adama claimed that registration of Prime’s mark would cause both product and source confusion because air conditioners are related to the hotel and resort business; ordinary purchasers may mistake Prime’s air conditioners as being made by Adama, and Adama’s hotels and resorts as being operated by Prime.
• Arbitrary Mark: Adama riposted that its marketing team coined KURA with no knowledge of or intent to refer to its meaning in any language, so its marks fall within the ambit of arbitrary marks, as any meanings of KURA bear no relation to the service for which the mark is used.
• Holistic Test Abandoned: Adama argued that the holistic test has already been abandoned.
• Likelihood Despite Product Coverage Differences: Adama argued that there is a likelihood of confusion of goods and business despite dissimilarities in the main features and product coverage of the competing marks, since air conditioners are part of the service class covered by Adama’s marks and difference in product coverage does not preclude confusing similarity.
• Normal Expansion of Business: Adama argued that the protection afforded by its marks should extend to air conditioners under the normal expansion of business principle because its business includes the provision of good ventilation and comfort to its clientele, which necessarily includes the usage of air conditioning units in tropical countries such as the Philippines, and because its marks cover luxury hotels and resorts where air conditioning is a main feature.
• Errors of the Court of Appeals: Adama argued that the Court of Appeals erred in not giving due weight to its statutory right as a holder of registered marks; in disregarding the identity of the competing marks’ dominant features and focusing solely on the differing goods and/or services of the parties; in ruling that there is no proximity between the goods or services of the parties and thus finding no confusion of business or source; in disregarding the Doctrine on Natural Expansion of Business; in failing to apply totality of circumstances in assessing the likelihood of confusion; and in giving credence to Prime’s good faith defense.

• Dissimilar Marks: Prime answered that its mark is dissimilar to Adama’s marks in terms of appearance, style, and composition, and that the likelihood of confusion is negligible because air conditioners and hospitality services are sold in different ways.
• KURA Not Coined: Prime argued that the BLA adjudicator erred in finding that KURA is a coined word with no lexical content, as it has meanings in several languages.
• Overall Appearance and Holistic Test: Prime argued that the BLA adjudicator disregarded the difference in the overall appearance of the competing marks and did not apply the holistic test in finding confusing similarity.
• No Direct Competition or Relation: Prime argued that the BLA adjudicator erred in finding a likelihood of confusion despite the lack of direct competition and relation between the products covered by the competing marks.
• No Normal Expansion: Prime asserted that there is no likelihood of confusion since air conditioners are not necessarily related to the hotel and resort business, and the BLA Director’s decision even admitted that the products covered by the competing marks are not closely related to each other.
• Weakness of Adama’s Marks: Prime pointed out the weakness of Adama’s marks, claiming that there are 52 active registered marks containing the word KURA under Nice class 43 in the World Intellectual Property Organization trademark database, while there are only three such marks under Nice class 11.
• Scope of Protection: Prime argued that the protection afforded by Adama’s marks should extend only to the product classes covered by its Certificate of Registration.
• No Likelihood of Confusion: Prime argued that the ODG correctly found no likelihood of confusion given the lack of relation between the parties’ products, the sophistication of the prospective consumers of such products, and the existence of marks under the same service classes in other jurisdictions that also use the word KURA.

• Likelihood of Confusion: Whether registration of Prime’s KURA mark for air conditioners is likely to cause confusion with Adama’s KURA HOTEL and KURA RESORT marks for hotel and resort services and products.
• Scope of Rule 45 Review: Whether the determination of likelihood of confusion and relatedness of goods or services is a question of fact or mixed question of fact and law outside the scope of a Rule 45 petition.

• Likelihood of Confusion: No. The registration of Prime’s KURA mark is not likely to cause confusion; although the marks share KURA as a dominant feature, the goods and services are not closely related and the multifactor test weighs against Adama.
• Scope of Rule 45 Review: The likelihood of confusion is a question of fact or, at the very least, a mixed question of fact and law; review under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law, and no reversible error was found.

• Likelihood of Confusion: Section 123.1(d)(ii) of the Intellectual Property Code prohibits registration of a mark identical with a prior mark in respect of closely related goods and services, while Section 123.1(d)(iii) bars registration of a mark that nearly resembles a prior mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion. In Kolin Electronics Co., Inc. vs. Kolin Philippines International, Inc. (Kolin 2-2021), the Court employed a multifactor test: first, the degree of similarity between the marks under Section 155.1; second, the relatedness of the goods and services under Section 123.1(d)(ii); and, in addition, the strength of the plaintiff’s mark, the likelihood that the plaintiff will bridge the gap or expand its product offerings to cover the defendant’s product areas, evidence of actual confusion, the defendant’s good faith, the quality of the defendant’s product or service, and the sophistication of the buyers. As to similarity, the holistic test has been abandoned, and the dominancy test governs under Section 155.1, which defines infringement as the colorable imitation of a registered mark or a dominant feature thereof. The three levels of the IPOPHL adjudicative machinery and the Court of Appeals all agreed that Prime’s and Adama’s marks are visually and aurally similar insofar as they share KURA as the dominant feature, and the Court was bound by that finding. However, the determination of confusing similarity does not stop at a comparison of aesthetic and semiotic characteristics; the relatedness of goods or services must also be considered. Goods and services are related for trademark registration when they have some functional or economic relation or similarity likely to cause confusion as to source among ordinary purchasers if covered by the same or similar marks. Case law lists several factors determinative of relatedness, including the business and location to which the goods belong, the class of product, quality, quantity or size, packaging, nature and cost, descriptive properties, purpose, whether the goods are daily household items bought for immediate consumption, fields of manufacture, conditions of purchase, channels of trade, distribution, marketing, display and sale, probable purchaser attitude and habits, retail outlets, and commercial impression. Relatedness is a question of fact outside the scope of a Rule 45 petition, but in view of the divergence of opinion within the IPO, the Court found that hotel and resort services are not so related to Prime’s air conditioners as to bar registration. There is a fundamental difference: air conditioners are machines, discrete and tangible commodities sold and packaged individually, while hotel and resort services are a collection of services—useful labor that does not produce a tangible commodity, particular skills offered to others, or a business offering a particular type of help or work. Hotel and resort services include room and board and auxiliary tasks such as furnishing and upkeep of rooms, accepting reservations or bookings, and providing security to guests. Air conditioners are semi-permanent fixtures usually marketed and sold through physical stores or internet retail platforms; they are installed and used not only in hotels and resorts but in any enclosed structure where electricity may be supplied and ventilation or air conditioning is necessary or desirable. Space cooling and ventilation is one of the top three primary uses of residential electricity consumption in the Philippines. Most hotel and resort services can only be availed of at the hotel or resort itself, usually through prior reservation, and cannot be readily purchased in physical stores in the same way as air conditioners; even the internet platforms for selling air conditioners and booking hotel reservations are usually distinct and separate. Adama claimed that air conditioners are complementary because they are a main feature of its facilities, but complementarity under trademark law pertains to complementarity or commonality not only of use, but also of marketing channels and appeal to purchasers. While both air conditioners and hotel or resort services provide a certain level of comfort, nothing inherent in hotel and resort operations precludes other means of space cooling or ventilation, and Adama failed to support its claims that its services are bought and sold through the same marketing channels or cover the same market as Prime’s air conditioners. As to the remaining factors, Adama’s KURA marks are arbitrary because the listed meanings of KURA bear little to no relation to hotel and resort services; arbitrary marks are less distinctive than coined and fanciful marks but rank high in the mark strength continuum and enjoy broad protection. Nevertheless, the other factors militate against Adama. The Court of Appeals found no bad faith in Prime’s registration, as it was filed without prior knowledge of Adama’s marks; bad faith in trademark registration means knowledge of prior creation, use, or registration of an identical or similar mark, and Adama merely charged Prime with knowledge by virtue of prior registration without other evidence that Prime deliberately copied its marks. Adama also submitted no evidence of actual confusion; while not required, proof of actual confusion is given great weight because the law uses mere likelihood of confusion as the base parameter. The natural potential expansion of Adama’s business does not cover air conditioners. The normal or natural potential expansion doctrine extends trademark protection to cases where use of a similar mark is likely to lead to confusion of source, as where prospective purchasers would be misled into thinking that the complaining party has extended its business into the field, or when it forestalls the normal potential expansion of the business; the field of normal potential expansion corresponds to the set of goods and services related to those covered by the marks. Air conditioners are not closely related to hotel and resort services, and Adama adduced no evidence that it is normal for luxury resorts and hotels to expand into selling air conditioners. Finally, as to buyer sophistication, the ordinary purchaser buys under normally prevalent conditions in trade and gives the attention such purchasers usually give in buying that class of goods. Air conditioners and hotel or resort services are purchased and used very differently; Adama’s services cannot be bought in the same stores as Prime’s air conditioners, and vice versa. Both are expensive and may even be considered luxury goods, and therefore command a higher level of care and attention. Air conditioners are also subject to the Philippine Energy Labeling Program, which requires every air conditioner unit sold in the market to bear a specifically designed label indicating the brand, product model, and energy efficiency specifications. Furthermore, the competing marks are both composite marks; while they share a common dominant feature, they also have distinct ancillary features that ordinary purchasers will tend to notice. Prime’s KURA mark includes a prominent half-snowflake design absent from Adama’s marks, while Adama’s marks include an emblem showing a geometric pattern of lines enclosed within a circle absent from Prime’s mark; the marks also use different colors and font styles. All told, the likelihood of ordinary purchasers confusing Prime’s KURA brand air conditioners as having been manufactured or sold by Adama’s KURA resorts or hotels is not enough to bar registration of Prime’s mark.
• Scope of Rule 45 Review: Review under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law clearly set forth in the petition. The likelihood of confusion between two trademarks is a question of fact, or at the very least a mixed question of fact and law, because it requires consideration not only of the audiovisual design of the competing marks but also the economic and operational circumstances of the businesses selling the goods or services covered by the marks. The relatedness of products or services covered by competing marks is likewise a question of fact outside the scope of a Rule 45 petition. The remaining components of the multifactor test—strength of the plaintiff’s mark, likelihood of bridging the gap, evidence of actual confusion, defendant’s good faith, quality of the defendant’s product or service, and sophistication of buyers—are all factual matters outside the scope of a Rule 45 review. No reversible error was found on the part of the ODG and the Court of Appeals in their consideration of these matters.

• Multifactor Test for Likelihood of Confusion — In determining whether a mark similar to a prior registered mark may be registered, the Court applies the multifactor test in Kolin Electronics Co., Inc. vs. Kolin Philippines International, Inc.: (1) the degree of similarity between the marks under Section 155.1 of the IP Code, using the dominancy test; (2) the relatedness of the goods and services covered by the marks under Section 123.1(d)(ii); (3) the strength of the plaintiff’s mark; (4) the likelihood that the plaintiff will bridge the gap or expand its product offerings to cover the defendant’s product areas; (5) evidence of actual confusion; (6) the defendant’s good faith in adopting the mark; (7) the quality of the defendant’s product or service; and (8) the sophistication of the buyers. Applied: the marks share KURA as a dominant feature, but the goods and services are not closely related, and the remaining factors weigh against Adama, so no likelihood of confusion exists.
• Dominancy Test — Similarity of marks is determined by the dominant feature of the competing marks; the holistic test has been abandoned in this jurisdiction by its omission from the IP Code and the enshrinement of the dominancy test in Section 155.1. Applied: KURA is the dominant feature in both Adama’s and Prime’s marks, but commonality of dominant features alone does not establish likelihood of confusion.
• Relatedness of Goods or Services — Goods and services are related for trademark registration when they have some functional or economic relation or similarity likely to cause confusion as to source among ordinary purchasers if covered by the same or similar marks. Factors include the business and location to which the goods belong, product class, quality, quantity or size, packaging, nature and cost, descriptive properties, physical attributes or essential characteristics, purpose, whether the goods are daily household items bought for immediate consumption, fields of manufacture, conditions of purchase, channels of trade, distribution, marketing, display and sale, probable purchaser attitude and habits, retail outlets, and commercial impression. Applied: air conditioners are machines sold and packaged individually, while hotel and resort services are intangible services availed of at the establishment, usually through reservation; they are not closely related.
• Normal Potential Expansion Doctrine — Protection of a trademark extends to cases where use of a similar mark is likely to lead to confusion of source, as where prospective purchasers would be misled into thinking that the complaining party has extended its business into the field, or when it forestalls the normal potential expansion of the business. The field of normal potential expansion corresponds to the set of goods and services related to those covered by the marks. Applied: air conditioners are not closely related to hotel and resort services, and Adama presented no evidence that it is normal for luxury resorts and hotels to expand into selling air conditioners.
• Arbitrary Marks — Marks that use common words whose meanings bear little or no relation to the goods or services are arbitrary; they are less distinctive than coined and fanciful marks but rank high in the mark strength continuum and enjoy broad protection. Applied: Adama’s KURA marks are arbitrary because the listed meanings of KURA bear little to no relation to hotel and resort services, but the other multifactor considerations militate against Adama.
• Bad Faith in Trademark Registration — Bad faith means knowledge of the prior creation, use, or registration of an identical or similar mark. Applied: no evidence showed Prime knew of Adama’s marks when it filed its application; mere prior registration of Adama’s marks was insufficient to prove deliberate copying.
• Actual Confusion — Proof of actual confusion is not required, but it is given great weight because the law uses mere likelihood of confusion as the base parameter for determining trademark similarity. Applied: Adama submitted no evidence of actual confusion.
• Sophistication of Buyers — The relevant standard is the ordinary purchaser buying under normally prevalent conditions in trade and giving the attention such purchasers usually give in buying that class of goods. Applied: air conditioners and hotel or resort services are expensive and may be considered luxury goods, are purchased and used very differently, and air conditioners are subject to the Philippine Energy Labeling Program; purchasers therefore exercise greater care.
• Composite Marks — Where competing marks share a dominant feature but also have distinct ancillary features, ordinary purchasers may notice the differences. Applied: Prime’s KURA mark includes a prominent half-snowflake design absent from Adama’s marks, while Adama’s marks include a geometric pattern of lines enclosed within a circle absent from Prime’s mark; the marks also use different colors and font styles.

• "The likelihood of confusion between two trademarks is a question of fact, or at the very least, a mixed question of fact and law, as it requires consideration not only of the audiovisual design of the competing marks, but also the economic and operational circumstances of the businesses selling the goods or services covered by said marks." — This passage defines the nature of the likelihood-of-confusion inquiry and supports the Court’s threshold ruling that the matter is generally outside the scope of a Rule 45 petition.
• "Goods and services are considered related for purposes of trademark registration when they have some functional or economic relation or similarity to another which is likely to cause confusion as to their source among ordinary purchasers if they were to be covered by the same mark or similar marks." — This is the Court’s canonical formulation of relatedness, the second statutory factor in the multifactor test.
• "There is a fundamental difference between air conditioners and hotel or resort services. The former is a machine; a discrete and tangible commodity which is sold and packaged individually. The latter is a collection of services..." — This passage supplies the ratio for the Court’s finding that the goods and services are not closely related despite the shared dominant mark.
• "All told, the likelihood of ordinary purchasers confusing Prime's KURA brand air conditioners as having been manufactured or sold by Adama's KURA resorts or hotels is not enough to bar the registration of the former's mark." — This is the Court’s ultimate conclusion on the likelihood of confusion and the registrability of Prime’s KURA mark.

• Kolin Electronics Co., Inc. vs. Kolin Philippines International, Inc., 896 Phil. 190 (2021) — Controlling precedent; laid down the multifactor test for likelihood of confusion, declared the holistic test abandoned, and enshrined the dominancy test in Section 155.1 of the IP Code.
• McDonald's Corporation vs. LC Big Mak Burger, Inc., 480 Phil. 402 (2004) — Cited for the normal potential expansion doctrine, quoting Sta. Ana vs. Maliwat.
• Sta. Ana vs. Maliwat, 133 Phil. 1006 (1968) — Source of the normal potential expansion doctrine quoted in McDonald’s.
• Phil. Refining Co. vs. Ng Sam, 201 Phil. 61 (1982) — Cited for the factors determinative of relatedness of goods or services.
• Mighty Corp. vs. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 478 Phil. 615 (2004) — Cited for the relatedness factors and for the rule that relatedness is a question of fact.
• Ginebra San Miguel, Inc. vs. Director of the Bureau of Trademarks, 927 Phil. 355 (2022) — Cited for the treatment of arbitrary marks and their rank in the mark strength continuum.
• Cymar International, Inc. vs. Farling Industrial Co., Ltd., 928 Phil. 498 (2022) — Cited for the definition of bad faith in trademark registration.
• Zuneca Pharmaceutical vs. Natrapharm, Inc., 882 Phil. 278 (2020) — Cited for the definition of bad faith in trademark registration.
• W Land Holdings, Inc. vs. Starwood Hotels and Resorts, Worldwide, Inc., 822 Phil. 23 (2017) — Cited for the scope of hotel and resort services, including reservations, and for the distinct internet platforms for air conditioners and hotel bookings.
• Makati Shangri-La Hotel and Resort, Inc. vs. Harper, 693 Phil. 596 (2012) — Cited for the scope of hotel and resort services, including security to guests.
• Philip Morris, Inc. vs. Fortune Tobacco Corp., 526 Phil. 300 (2006) — Cited for the rule that likelihood of confusion is a question of fact or mixed question of fact and law.
• Emerald Garment Mfg. Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 321 Phil. 1001 (1995) — Cited for the same rule on the factual nature of likelihood of confusion.

• Section 123.1(d)(ii), Intellectual Property Code — Prohibits registration of a mark identical with a prior mark in respect of closely related goods and services. Applied: the Court considered the relatedness of air conditioners and hotel and resort services and found they are not closely related.
• Section 123.1(d)(iii), Intellectual Property Code — Bars registration of a mark that nearly resembles a prior mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion. Applied: the Court assessed likelihood of confusion under the multifactor test and found none.
• Section 155.1, Intellectual Property Code — Defines infringement as the colorable imitation of a registered mark or a dominant feature thereof, enshrining the dominancy test. Applied: the Court used the dominancy test to compare the marks and found that they share KURA as a dominant feature, but that this alone does not establish likelihood of confusion.
• Rule 45, Section 1, Rules of Court — Review is limited to questions of law clearly set forth in the petition. Applied: likelihood of confusion and relatedness are questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law, generally outside Rule 45, and no reversible error was found.
• DOE Circular No. DC2020-060115 (2020), sec. 5, Implementing Guidelines of the Philippine Energy Labeling Program for Air Conditioners — Requires every air conditioner unit sold in the market to bear a specifically designed label indicating brand, product model, and energy efficiency specifications. Applied: supports the finding that air conditioner purchasers exercise greater care and attention.

Caguioa, Acting C.J. (Chairperson); Inting, J.; Dimaampao, J.; and Singh, J., concurred.