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 non-involvement 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.