It contends that the inclusion of the two-year non-involvement clause in

petitioners contract of employment was reasonable and needed since her job gave
her access to the companys confidential marketing strategies. Respondent adds
that the non-involvement clause merely enjoined her from engaging in pre-need
business akin to respondents within two years from petitioners separation from
respondent. She had not been prohibited from marketing other service plans.
this is a common scenario. i am not a lawyer but i can speak from an experience of
my colleague. my colleague is a product manager of a huge telco-industry company
and for a couple of years he served in good faith. recently an offer from a direct
competitor came and he accepted. his current employer of course tried to prevent
him from transferring because of a non-compete clause, and to a direct competitor
at that. my friend was not to be denied the good opportunity, he resigned and
transferred. at first, his now former company send feelers about chasing him, filing
a case or whatever. but my colleague sought advice from lawyers who already
handled a similar case. according to the lawyers, there is no record yet that one
employee lost a case pertaining to non-compete clause. why? because when you
escalate the dispute to the Department of Labor, as a citizen you will be protected
by the government. your interest as a civilian, with a right to earn a living, will be
the shouting argument. government would rather have you employed and have a
means of living, than you to be added up in the growing number of the unemployed.
that is why the non-compete clause is just baloney - that is in the case of my
colleague. my colleague is currently happy in his new job now, working for the
competitor, with better working conditions, much better pay.

Non-compete clause i think is a violation of the right to unlawful servitude, thus, you
cannot be compelled to do or not to do something which is especially your bread
and butter. However, you as the signatoty is not exempt from civil liabilities because
you have breached a term in the contract.
In other words, true that the constitution protects one's rights, however, these
rights cannot be used to the prejudice of other person (individual or artificial). Every
actions entails responsibilities and obligations that must be complied with or
suffered as a consequence thereof.
Thus, even if the constitution invalidates such contract, the agreement still stands
concerning you personally and the company. You have to choose to exercise your
constitutional rights and face the consequence of said breach of contract or abide

with the contract... ^^

As to the breach of contract, the company may sue you for damages and also my
raise the claim for the "protection of trade secrets"(there is a legal term for this
which i am not acquinted yet)...
Well, In the Philippine Judiciary, heirarchy of Courts is being exercised except on
instances where different courts have concurrent jurisdictions... and usually, this
kind of questions o are triable by lower courts and may be brought to the Supreme
Court by review based on questions of law or by certiorari grounded on grave abuse
of of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. More likely, the
Supreme Court has no time resolving such case being it moot and academic.

While the complainant in that case was an independent agent and not an
employee, she was prohibited for one year from engaging directly or indirectly in
activities of other companies that compete with the business of her principal. We
noted therein that the restriction did not prohibit the agent from engaging in any
other business, or from being connected with any other company, for as long as the
business or company did not compete with the principals business. Further, the
prohibition applied only for one year after the termination of the agents contract
and was therefore a reasonable restriction designed to prevent acts prejudicial to
the employer.
Conformably then with the aforementioned pronouncements, a noninvolvement clause is not necessarily void for being in restraint of trade as long as
there are reasonable limitations as to time, trade, and place.
In this case, the non-involvement clause has a time limit: two years from the
time petitioners employment with respondent ends. It is also limited as to trade,

since it only prohibits petitioner from engaging in any pre-need business akin to
respondents.
More significantly, since petitioner was the Senior Assistant Vice-President
and Territorial Operations Head in charge of respondents Hongkong and Asean
operations, she had been privy to confidential and highly sensitive marketing
strategies of respondents business. To allow her to engage in a rival business soon
after she leaves would make respondents trade secrets vulnerable especially in a
highly competitive marketing environment. In sum, we find the non-involvement
clause not contrary to public welfare and not greater than is necessary to afford a
fair and reasonable protection to respondent.
In any event, Article 1306 of the Civil Code provides that parties to a
contract may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may
deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs,
public order, or public policy.
Article 1159of the same Code also provides that obligations arising from
contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be
complied with in good faith. Courts cannot stipulate for the parties nor amend
their agreement where the same does not contravene law, morals, good customs,
public order or public policy, for to do so would be to alter the real intent of the
parties, and would run contrary to the function of the courts to give force and effect
thereto. Not being contrary to public policy, the non-involvement clause, which
petitioner and respondent freely agreed upon, has the force of law between them,
and thus, should be complied with in good faith.