A MESSAGE FOR SORIANO’S FOLLOWERS

Dear followers of Eli Soriano,

THE ANG DATING DAAN/MCGI IS A SATANIC CULT!!!

Religion has the power to manipulate humans to believe unrealistic doctrine and engage in destructive behavior. Religious cults are groups of people involved with unorthodox practices that are disguised as Christianity. Like the Soriano group, cult members belong to an elite structure (group) dictated by leaders (presiding ministers) who profess to be the only ones communicating through God. By keeping the lives of their members compartmentalized, cult leaders allow no time for their followers to reflect or think, leading to stress and mental illness.

Through using lies and twisted scriptural language, Soriano is misleading multitudes of people into hell. Sadly, you his followers remain blind as Soriano excites you with Scriptures mixed with falsehoods. How sad you followers are taught to be hateful to fellow humans, breeding a culture of hate, even abusing others and attacking personalities in different positions? An ongoing malicious campaign of hate, an “us vs. them” attitude is clearly seen within this quasi-religious and spiritual supremacist group you have fallen into. Members believe in the superiority of their “religion” over all other religions. The MCGI has crossed the line, by stating “a Christian must hate the person”. The point is made not just to hate the badness, but to actually hate the person, which is not the so-called Christian love add followers claim to show.

ADD policies and prohibitions reach into virtually every area of life and cover minutia to the extreme. Pleasures are condemned including drinking, marrying, as well holidays like Christmas. Higher education, career advancement are also prohibited because Soriano teaches that the Bible is the best University ever-and there is no need to purse higher education-a straw man argument. Continue reading

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

SORIANO COMPLAINS TO WORDPRESS ABOUT OUR SITE!

In a desperate move against our blogsite, homosexual rapist and cult leader Soriano, through his lawyers, filed a complaint to WordPress about some of the material published on our site.

This site is too much for Soriano and his followers. We understand. Tsk tsk tsk…..

Regardless of what Soriano and his loony’s do, this site is here to remain. BTW, here we have a lunatic whose sites are full of material copied from other sites and no one has sued him for that. Why would any one waste time suing a worthless false preacher like Soriano over material such as images? Of course Soriano would do that. Why? Because he is bitter the world is knowing who he really is through the exposure of blunt sites such as The Real Truth behind the Ang Dating Cult.

Any way, Soriano’s attempts to malign our site have been rebuffed by WordPress, which told them that the use of the material falls under the fair use policy and wont be removed or disabled. He he he!

Of course they will go miles and lodge other complaints or suits. But the truth that is contained in our site wont be water-washed down by a cult that is known for crying like a baby.Those are signs of a dying horse.

Soriano should rather challenge the content of our site other than acting like a coward dodging challenges, focusing on complaining about his material fairly used by other sites. Taking down the pictures wont save him, nor his cult from being exposed as false and deceptive.

Desperation? Downfall? Counting down the last days of the ADD cult…..

Posted in Eli Soriano, Eli Soriano-a maw of a false Preacher, Rebuttals, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

COMMEMORATING SORIANO’S 5 DECADES OF FALSE PREACHING AND HOW TO LIE-ADD STYLE

Commemorating Mama Eli's decade of false preaching!

Commemorating Mama Eli’s decade of false preaching!

If we assume the ADD cult to be a Christian congregation, it won’t even pass the test, as has been shown by what Martin Luther said. This further confirms the assertion of it being a cult. It is not even a cult of Christianity, but a cult of personality under the guise of being a Christian group.

A man who says he and he alone knows the truth should be wearing a straitjacket. Soriano is the man.

Why did Martin Luther leave the Catholic Church? You know how to read but obviously your addled brain can’t understand. That’s why a member of the ADD cult has to have an ID. You think membership in the ADD cult is the same as being part of the Church of Christ. Continue reading

Posted in ADD Members-following a false preacher, ADD-'a fool God and a wise Preacher", ADD-a greedy business empire, Bag of Tricks and deception, Eli Soriano, Eli Soriano-a maw of a false Preacher, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

ANG MGA KAANIB SA IGLESIA NG DIOS KAY KRISTO HESUS vs. IGLESIA NG DIOS KAY CRISTO JESUS, HALIGI AT SUHAY NG KATOTOHANAN-Philippine Supreme Court decision

supreme-court-building-1

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 137592. December 12, 2001]

ANG MGA KAANIB SA IGLESIA NG DIOS KAY KRISTO HESUS, H.S.K. SA BANSANG PILIPINAS, INC. petitioner, vs. IGLESIA NG DIOS KAY CRISTO JESUS, HALIGI AT SUHAY NG KATOTOHANAN, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

This is a petition for review assailing the Decision dated October 7, 1997[1] and the Resolution dated February 16, 1999[2] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 40933, which affirmed the Decision of the Securities and Exchange and Commission (SEC) in SEC-AC No. 539.[3]

Respondent Iglesia ng Dios Kay Cristo Jesus, Haligi at Suhay ng Katotohanan (Church of God in Christ Jesus, the Pillar and Ground of Truth),[4] is a non-stock religious society or corporation registered in 1936. Sometime in 1976, one Eliseo Soriano and several other members of respondent corporation disassociated themselves from the latter and succeeded in registering on March 30, 1977 a new non-stock religious society or corporation, named Iglesia ng Dios Kay Kristo Hesus, Haligi at Saligan ng Katotohanan.

On July 16, 1979, respondent corporation filed with the SEC a petition to compel the Iglesia ng Dios Kay Kristo Hesus, Haligi at Saligan ng Katotohanan to change its corporate name, which petition was docketed as SEC Case No. 1774. On May 4, 1988, the SEC rendered judgment in favor of respondent, ordering the Iglesia ng Dios Kay Kristo Hesus, Haligi at Saligan ng Katotohanan to change its corporate name to another name that is not similar or identical to any name already used by a corporation, partnership or association registered with the Commission.[5] No appeal was taken from said decision.

It appears that during the pendency of SEC Case No. 1774, Soriano, et al., caused the registration on April 25, 1980 of petitioner corporation, Ang Mga Kaanib sa Iglesia ng Dios Kay Kristo Hesus, H.S.K., sa Bansang Pilipinas. The acronym H.S.K. stands for Haligi at Saligan ng Katotohanan.[6]

On March 2, 1994, respondent corporation filed before the SEC a petition, docketed as SEC Case No. 03-94-4704, praying that petitioner be compelled to change its corporate name and be barred from using the same or similar name on the ground that the same causes confusion among their members as well as the public.

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action. The motion to dismiss was denied. Thereafter, for failure to file an answer, petitioner was declared in default and respondent was allowed to present its evidence ex parte.

On November 20, 1995, the SEC rendered a decision ordering petitioner to change its corporate name. The dispositive portion thereof reads:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the petitioner (respondent herein).

Respondent Mga Kaanib sa Iglesia ng Dios Kay Kristo Jesus (sic), H.S.K. sa Bansang Pilipinas (petitioner herein) is hereby MANDATED to change its corporate name to another not deceptively similar or identical to the same already used by the Petitioner, any corporation, association, and/or partnership presently registered with the Commission.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Records Division and the Corporate and Legal Department [CLD] of this Commission for their records, reference and/or for whatever requisite action, if any, to be undertaken at their end.

SO ORDERED.[7]

Petitioner appealed to the SEC En Banc, where its appeal was docketed as SEC-AC No. 539. In a decision dated March 4, 1996, the SEC En Banc affirmed the above decision, upon a finding that petitioner’s corporate name was identical or confusingly or deceptively similar to that of respondents corporate name.[8]

Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. On October 7, 1997, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision affirming the decision of the SEC En Banc. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals on February 16, 1992.

Hence, the instant petition for review, raising the following assignment of errors:

I

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT PETITIONER HAS NOT BEEN DEPRIVED OF ITS RIGHT TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS DISREGARDED THE JURISPRUDENCE APPLICABLE TO THE CASE AT BAR AND INSTEAD RELIED ON TOTALLY INAPPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE.

II

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ITS INTEPRETATION OF THE CIVIL CODE PROVISIONS ON EXTINCTIVE PRESCRIPTION, THEREBY RESULTING IN ITS FAILURE TO FIND THAT THE RESPONDENT’S RIGHT OF ACTION TO INSTITUTE THE SEC CASE HAS SINCE PRESCRIBED PRIOR TO ITS INSTITUTION.

III

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO CONSIDER AND PROPERLY APPLY THE EXCEPTIONS ESTABLISHED BY JURISPRUDENCE IN THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 18 OF THE CORPORATION CODE TO THE INSTANT CASE.

IV

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO PROPERLY APPRECIATE THE SCOPE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, THEREBY FAILING TO APPLY THE SAME TO PROTECT PETITIONERS RIGHTS.[9]

Invoking the case of Legarda v. Court of Appeals,[10] petitioner insists that the decision of the Court of Appeals and the SEC should be set aside because the negligence of its former counsel of record, Atty. Joaquin Garaygay, in failing to file an answer after its motion to dismiss was denied by the SEC, deprived them of their day in court.

The contention is without merit. As a general rule, the negligence of counsel binds the client. This is based on the rule that any act performed by a lawyer within the scope of his general or implied authority is regarded as an act of his client.[11] An exception to the foregoing is where the reckless or gross negligence of the counsel deprives the client of due process of law.[12] Said exception, however, does not obtain in the present case.

In Legarda v. Court of Appeals, the effort of the counsel in defending his clients cause consisted in filing a motion for extension of time to file answer before the trial court. When his client was declared in default, the counsel did nothing and allowed the judgment by default to become final and executory. Upon the insistence of his client, the counsel filed a petition to annul the judgment with the Court of Appeals, which denied the petition, and again the counsel allowed the denial to become final and executory. This Court found the counsel grossly negligent and consequently declared as null and void the decision adverse to his client.

The factual antecedents of the case at bar are different. Atty. Garaygay filed before the SEC a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action. When his client was declared in default for failure to file an answer, Atty. Garaygay moved for reconsideration and lifting of the order of default.[13] After judgment by default was rendered against petitioner corporation, Atty. Garaygay filed a motion for extension of time to appeal/motion for reconsideration, and thereafter a motion to set aside the decision.[14]

Evidently, Atty. Garaygay was only guilty of simple negligence. Although he failed to file an answer that led to the rendition of a judgment by default against petitioner, his efforts were palpably real, albeit bereft of zeal.[15]

Likewise, the issue of prescription, which petitioner raised for the first time on appeal to the Court of Appeals, is untenable. Its failure to raise prescription before the SEC can only be construed as a waiver of that defense.[16] At any rate, the SEC has the authority to de-register at all times and under all circumstances corporate names which in its estimation are likely to spawn confusion. It is the duty of the SEC to prevent confusion in the use of corporate names not only for the protection of the corporations involved but more so for the protection of the public.[17]

Section 18 of the Corporation Code provides:

Corporate Name. — No corporate name may be allowed by the Securities and Exchange Commission 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 is contrary to existing laws. When a change in the corporate name is approved, the Commission shall issue an amended certificate of incorporation under the amended name.

Corollary thereto, the pertinent portion of the SEC Guidelines on Corporate Names states:

(d) If the proposed name contains a word similar to a word already used as part of the firm name or style of a registered company, the proposed name must contain two other words different from the name of the company already registered;

Parties organizing a corporation must choose a name at their peril; and the use of a name similar to one adopted by another corporation, whether a business or a nonprofit organization, if misleading or likely to injure in the exercise of its corporate functions, regardless of intent, may be prevented by the corporation having a prior right, by a suit for injunction against the new corporation to prevent the use of the name.[18]

Petitioner claims that it complied with the aforecited SEC guideline by adding not only two but eight words to their registered name, to wit: Ang Mga Kaanib” and “Sa Bansang Pilipinas, Inc., which, petitioner argues, effectively distinguished it from respondent corporation.

The additional words Ang Mga Kaanib and Sa Bansang Pilipinas, Inc. in petitioners name are, as correctly observed by the SEC, merely descriptive of and also referring to the members, or kaanib, of respondent who are likewise residing in the Philippines. These words can hardly serve as an effective differentiating medium necessary to avoid confusion or difficulty in distinguishing petitioner from respondent. This is especially so, since both petitioner and respondent corporations are using the same acronym — H.S.K.;[19] not to mention the fact that both are espousing religious beliefs and operating in the same place. Parenthetically, it is well to mention that the acronym H.S.K. used by petitioner stands for Haligi at Saligan ng Katotohanan.[20]

Then, too, the records reveal that in holding out their corporate name to the public, petitioner highlights the dominant words IGLESIA NG DIOS KAY KRISTO HESUS, HALIGI AT SALIGAN NG KATOTOHANAN, which is strikingly similar to respondent’s corporate name, thus making it even more evident that the additional words Ang Mga Kaanib and Sa Bansang Pilipinas, Inc., are merely descriptive of and pertaining to the members of respondent corporation.[21]

Significantly, the only difference between the corporate names of petitioner and respondent are the words SALIGAN and SUHAY. These words are synonymous — both mean ground, foundation or support. Hence, this case is on all fours with Universal Mills Corporation v. Universal Textile Mills, Inc.,[22] where the Court ruled that the corporate names Universal Mills Corporation and Universal Textile Mills, Inc., are undisputably so similar that even under the test of reasonable care and observation confusion may arise.

Furthermore, the wholesale appropriation by petitioner of respondent’s corporate name cannot find justification under the generic word rule. We agree with the Court of Appeals conclusion that a contrary ruling would encourage other corporations to adopt verbatim and register an existing and protected corporate name, to the detriment of the public.

The fact that there are other non-stock religious societies or corporations using the names Church of the Living God, Inc., Church of God Jesus Christ the Son of God the Head, Church of God in Christ & By the Holy Spirit, and other similar names, is of no consequence. It does not authorize the use by petitioner of the essential and distinguishing feature of respondent’s registered and protected corporate name.[23]

We need not belabor the fourth issue raised by petitioner. Certainly, ordering petitioner to change its corporate name is not a violation of its constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom. In so doing, the SEC merely compelled petitioner to abide by one of the SEC guidelines in the approval of partnership and corporate names, namely its undertaking to manifest its willingness to change its corporate name in the event another person, firm, or entity has acquired a prior right to the use of the said firm name or one deceptively or confusingly similar to it.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant petition for review is DENIED. The appealed decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ., concur.

Puno, J., on official leave.

[1] Rollo, pp. 57-68; penned Mr. Justice Cancio C. Garcia and concurred in by Mesdames Justices Delilah Vidallion-Magtolis and Marina L. Buzon.

[2] Ibid., pp. 54-55.

[3] Ibid., pp. 70-73.

[4] Official English translation; see Rollo, p. 252.

[5] Rollo, pp. 419-424.

[6] Ibid., p. 430.

[7] Ibid., pp. 78-79.

[8] Ibid., pp. 70-73.

[9] Ibid., pp. 18-19.

[10] 195 SCRA 418 [1991].

[11] Apex Mining, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 319 SCRA 456, 465 [1999].

[12] Legarda v. Court of Appeals, supra.

[13] Rollo, p. 75.

[14] Ibid., p. 71.

Source: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/dec2001/137592.htm

Posted in ADD History, ADD-a greedy business empire, Eli Soriano, Legal suits, Lies and deception, Lies and Misinformation | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

WHAT IS ANG DATING DAAN? IS IT SOME KIND OF NEW JWs OR MORMON TYPE OF GROUP?

ADD Coordinating Centre-IS THIS BIBLICAL?

ADD Coordinating Centre-IS THIS BIBLICAL?

Catholic Dude: I kept hearing about this Ang Dating Daan thing and went to their web page. From what I saw it was some type of protestant denomination in the Philippines.

So whats the big deal about them if anything? Is it some kind of new JW or LDS type group?, it didnt look like it on their page.


Contarini: I’m happy Ang is dating Daan. Are they making wedding plans yet?

Tonks40: I’m not sure what it is, either – you may want to do a search on this forum for some information on them.

Please pray for our brothers and sisters in the Philippines. As an American of Filipino decent, I’m saddened to hear that groups such as this and Iglesia Ni Cristo have made in-roads in pulling people of the Philippines away from the Church. I have many friends here who have been a part of these groups (I wouldn’t even call them Christian) that have been so damaged by them, they cannot see the Truth of Jesus Christ. They deny His Divinity, they’re confused about the message of the Gospels, and they seem to be very bitter people. That’s not the true nature of the Filipinos. Continue reading

Posted in ADD Members-following a false preacher, ADD-'a fool God and a wise Preacher", ADD-a greedy business empire, Eli Soriano, Eli Soriano-a maw of a false Preacher, How the MCGI/ADD is a CULT | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

WHO IS ELISEO SORIANO? WHAT CAN YOU SAY ABOUT THE ADD? IS IT A CULT?

“They see vain things, and they foretell lies saying, THE LORD SAID: whereas the Lord has NOT sent them, AND THEY HAVE PERSISTED TO CONFIRM WHAT THEY HAVE SAID.”- Ezekiel 13:6

“They see vain things, and they foretell lies saying, THE LORD SAID: whereas the Lord has NOT sent them, AND THEY HAVE PERSISTED TO CONFIRM WHAT THEY HAVE SAID.”- Ezekiel 13:6

Does anyone here knows, who Eliseo Soriano is?what can you say about Ang Dating Daan??

Answers

Lorenzo Ruiz: Eliseo soriano’s the leader of “ang dating daan” a cult just like its arch-nemesis “iglesia ni cristo”.

Homonculus: Yeah, I know him… he’s the guy from T.V. He is the founder of Ang Dating Daan. Yeah, his organization is a cult. He even contradicts with his own teachings. The organization’s nemesis is “Iglesia ni Cristo” I wonder why they are called that… they don’t even believe in Jesus Christ as God.

Suzie H: I’d say you do not need to know anything about Eliseo soriano or ang dating daan!!! Beware!!! Danger!!!

Mr. Smile: a cult leader from the Philippines.

Averell A: Exclusivists are generally cults.

Posted in ADD History, ADD Members-following a false preacher, ADD-'a fool God and a wise Preacher", ADD-a greedy business empire, Eli Soriano, Eli Soriano-a maw of a false Preacher, How the MCGI/ADD is a CULT | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

BIBLICAL BASIS OF SORIANO FOR MCGI EXPOSED AS DECEPTION By Winnie Ibe

Does Mama Eli read properly? Or like a crown?You be the judge!
Does Mama Eli read properly? 

Soriano loves to cite Daniel 12: 3-4,9-10 to justify his claims and his church’s existence. He claims that for a long period of time the knowledge of the Bible is closed. He then add that the phrase ,” till the time of the end” refers to our time”. Because it’s the end of time the “words” which for SORIANO is the Bible that was sealed is now open. He is the wise man who will instrumental for others to be like the stars.

Does his claim fit perfectly with Scriptures? Not really. It could however sounds credible to his followers as they were DECEIVED to accept his every words as gospel truth.

Continue reading

Posted in ADD-'a fool God and a wise Preacher", Bag of Tricks and deception, Eli Soriano, Eli Soriano-a maw of a false Preacher, Lies and deception, Lies and Misinformation, Misquotes, Rebuttals, Rhetorical fallacies and false reasoning | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

SORIANO AND HIS FOLLOWERS FACILE ARGUMENTS-A STAPLE CHILD’S PLAY! By Aloysius Kayiwa

Soriano unbiblically undermines tithes to the Lord by replacing "tithing" with "contributions" and that way succeeds into duping his followers to donate large sums of money to him. MCGI members in turn lie and loathe outsiders by upholding and honoring Soriano. This blind loyalty keeps the MCGI coffers filled!

Soriano unbiblically undermines tithes to the Lord by replacing “tithing” with “contributions” to him and that way succeeds into duping his followers to donate large sums of money to him. MCGI members in turn lie and loathe outsiders by upholding and honoring Soriano. This blind loyalty keeps the MCGI coffers filled!

Call it deception or not but Deception is a staple child’s play for Soriano and his minions. They deceptively believe they have the truth even if they have not done the research to prove it, a defining factor of all cults.

Most of their arguments are strongly illogical or at most laughable. For example often in an argument with them, they desperately try as much(but in vain) to prove that their cult(founded in 1980) is the true Church.They believe the Bible mentions their church by name. They desperately want to find the phrase “Church of God” in the Sacred Scriptures. This is the way their argument goes;

 “What is the name of God’s church, as given in the Bible? It is the ‘Church of God.’ Our church is called the ‘Members of Church of God International.’ Therefore, ours is the church God founded. 

This argument is facile! Continue reading

Posted in ADD Members-following a false preacher, ADD-a greedy business empire, Bag of Tricks and deception, Eli Soriano, Eli Soriano-a maw of a false Preacher, Helping some one leave, Lies and deception, Lies and Misinformation, Rapist Soriano, Rebuttals, Rhetorical fallacies and false reasoning | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment