• Each aspirant shall respect the results of the
ARTICLE 1306 convention, i.e., no one of us shall either run as a
DAISY TIU V PLATINUM PLANS PHIL., INC.
G.R. No. 163512, February 28, 2007
• Respondent Platinum is engaged in the pre-need
industry.
• In 1993, it rehired petitioner as Senior Assistant Vice
President and Territorial Operations Head in charge
of its Hongkong and Asean operations.
• The parties executed a contract of employment for 5
years.
• However, in 1995, petitioner stopped reporting for
worker, where she thereafter became the Vice President
for Sales of Professional Pension Plans, Inc, which is
also engaged in pre-need industry.
• Respondent then sued for damages, alleging that
petitioner’s employment violated the non-involvement
clause in her contract.
• The trial court upheld the validity of the clause, holding
that the contract in restraint of trade is valid provided
there is a limitation on the time or place — which in this
case is 2 years.
• On appeal, the CA affirmed, reasoning the petitioner
entered into the contract of her own will and volition.
• Petitioner argues the non-involvement clause is offensive
to public policy since the restraint impose much greater
than what is necessary to afford her of a fair and
reasonable protection.
ISSUE:
• W/N the non-involvement clause is valid
HELD:
• In this case, the non-involvement clause has a time limit,
which is 2 years from the time petitioner’s 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 respondent’s.
• Due to the petitioner’s position, she had been privy to
confidential and highly sensitive marketing strategies
of respondent’s business.
• To allow her to engage in a rival business after she
leaves would make respondent’s trade secrets
vulnerable.
• In sum, the non-involvement clause is not contrary to
public welfare and not greater than is necessary to
afford a fair and reasonable protection to respondent.
• Court cannot stipulate for the parties nor amend their
agreement where it does not contravene law, morals,
good customs, public order or public policy.
• To do so would alter the real intent of the parties and
would run contrary to the function of the courts to give
force and effect there to.
• Hence, the non-involvement clause has the force of law
between the parties and should be complied with in good
faith.
• Petition is denied for lack of merit.
RAMON SAURA V ESTELA SINDICO
G.R. No. L-13403, March 23, 1960
• Plaintiff Saura and defendant Sindico entered into a
written agreement, containing a pledge that:
rebel or independent candidate after losing in the
convention.
• Saura was elected and proclaimed the Party’s official
congressional candidate for the district of Pangasinan in
the convention.
• Sindico still filed her COC for the same office with the
COMELEC and openly campaigned for her election.
• Hence, Saura filed an action for recovery of damages,
which was dismissed as the agreement was null and
void for being not within the commerce of man.
• Hence this appeal, arguing the the violation of the the
pledge accounts for recovery of damages
ISSUE:
• W/N the pledge is null and void
HELD”
• Among those which may not be the object of contracts
are certain right of individuals, which the law and public
policy deemed wise to exclude from the commerce of
man.
• This includes to the political rights granted to the
citizens, which covers the right to vote, the right to
present one’s candidacy to the people and to be voted to
public office.
• Such right may not be bargained away curtailed with
impunity, for they are conferred for the public good and
interest.
• Agreement in consideration of withdrawal of candidates
for office have been condemned by the courts as against
public policy — be it from the race for nomination or
for election.
• The Court cannot entertain plaintiff’s action, which
would result in limiting the choice of the electors to only
those persons selected by small group or party boses.
• Hence, the order of dismissal is affirmed.
EMETERIO CUI V ARELLANO UNIVERSITY
G.R. No. L-15127, May 30, 1961
• Plaintiff Cui finished his law studies in defendant
Arellano University until the 1st semester of the 4th
year.
• The Dean and legal counsel of the university,
Capistrano, is the brother of the mother of the plaintiff.
• However, plaintiff failed to enroll for the law semester
because Capistrano severed his connection with the
university and accepted the deanship and chancellorship
of the College of law of Abad Santos University.
• Plaintiff then left Arellano University and enrolled in
Abad Santos University.
• During his stay in Arellano University, he was awarded
scholarship grant for scholastic merit so his tuition were
returned to him at the end of the semester and when his
scholarship grants were awarded to him.
• The whole amount is in total of P1,033.87.
• When he applied to take the bar, he needed to the
transcripts of his records with Arellano University, who
refused until he paid the P1,033.87.
• The plaintiff paid in protest.
• Being a scholar, he was made to sign a contract
covenant and agreement:
• In consideration of the scholarship granted to me, I
hereby waive my right to transfer to another
school without having refunded to the University
the equivalent of my scholarship cash.
• The Director of Private Schools issued a Memorandum
No. 38, on the subject of Scholarship, which provides:
• The amount corresponding to these scholarship
should not be subsequently charged to the
recipient students when they decided to quit school
or to transfer to another institution. Scholarships
should not be offered merely to attract and keep
students in a school.
ISSUE:
• W/N the contract where the plaintiff waived his right to
transfer to another school without refunding the
equivalent of his scholarship cash is valid
HELD:
• If Arellano University understood the real essence of
scholarships and the motives which prompted the
issuance of the memorandum, it should not have entered
into a contract of waiver with Cui.
• Such contract is a direct violation of the memorandum
and an open challenge to the authority of the Director of
Private schools because it was repugnant to sound
morality and civic honesty.
• The policy under the memorandum is sound policy.
• Scholarships are awarded in recognition of merit not
to keep outstanding students in school to bolster its
prestige.
• The practice of awarding scholarship to attract students
and keep them in school is not good customs nor has it
received some social and practical confirmation except
in private institutions as in Arellano University.
Hence, decision is reversed.