INVITATION LETTER FOR JOB INTERVIEW

March 3, 2022

Good Day Chef Monica:

This is Carol Anne Delos Reyes. I am reaching out to on behalf of Eye Candy. I just wanted to
touch base with you, and ask about your experience working with Richard Brake, and the rest of
the staff.

Your previous work here at the Eye Candy has impressed us and your qualifications make you a
great candidate for the Head Chef position.

In line with this, we would like to invite you to a face-to-face interview at our office, 3rd Floor,
Eye Candy Restaurant, Quezon City on March 15, 2022. The interview will last for about 45
minutes where we will understand your career goals and where you can further your
understanding about the resturant’s objectives.

Kindly bring three copies of your resume to the interview. You can wear casual outfit and during
the interview, you will speak with the following people:

• Phoebe Bumatay, Head Human Resource

• Richard Brake, Owner

Please respond no later than March 10, 2022, regarding your available time. If you have any
questions, you can reach us at 454-5678.

Sincerely,

Carol Anne T. Delos Reyes

Legal Representative for Eye Candy
 REGULAR EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

This employment agreement is entered into and executed on 15 March, 2022 at Quezon
City, Philippines, by and between the following:

EYE CANDY RESTAURANT, with principal place of business at F.

Papaya Road, Quezon City, Philippines, as represented herein by its Owner,
MR. RICHARD BLAKE, hereinafter referred to as the “Employer”;

- and –

MS. MONICA, Filipino Citizen, of legal age, with address at No. 123 ABC
Street, Brgy. Sta. Maria, Quezon City, Philippines, hereinafter referred to as
the “Employee”;

WITNESSETH

WHEREAS, the Employer is engaged in the business of Potato Farming and is in need
of a Potato Farmer primarily for the purpose of Planting and Harvesting;

WHEREAS, the Employee guarantees, declares, and warrants that he has the necessary
qualifications and is competent for the said position;

WHEREAS, due to the above representations, the Employer offers the Employee the
above-mentioned position as a regular employee;

NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises, the parties hereby
agree as follows:

1. Employment Period – The employment commences on March 20, 2022, provided that
the following pre-employment requirements have been accomplished and submitted prior
to the 1st day of work: NBI Clearance and Birth Certificate. Unless otherwise directed,
the ordinary working hours shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., with a one-hour meal
break. The ordinary workdays shall be from Monday to Saturday except as otherwise
instructed.
2. Compensation – The Employee’s gross compensation is Php One Hundred Thousand
PESOS (P 100,000.00) per month. After deductions, the net income shall be payable on
the 15th and 30th of the month.
3. Duties and Responsibilities – The Employee hereby consents to be assigned primarily
the following duties and responsibilities: Controlling and directing the food preparation
process; Approving and polishing dishes before they reach the customer; Creating menu
items, recipes and developing dishes ensuring variety and quality; Determining food
inventory needs, stocking and ordering; Ultimately responsible for ensuring the kitchen
meets all regulations including sanitary and food safety guidelines; Managing and
working closely with other Chefs of all levels. The Employer reserves the right to appoint
the Employee to other tasks and responsibilities.
4. Monetary Benefits and Leaves – Unless otherwise provided in the company policies,
statutory monetary benefits and leaves will be provided to the Employee whenever due
and proper.
5. Violations and Disciplinary Actions – Except as otherwise modified in the company
policies, labor law grounds for disciplinary action, including termination, is hereby
adopted and incorporated by reference
6. Taxes, Government Contributions, Authority to Deduct – The Employee hereby
agrees to deductions authorized by law, including but not limited to, withholding tax,
SSS, Philhealth, Pag-IBIG, debts owing to the Employer, and all other analogous
deductions.
7. Company Policies – The Employee hereby agrees and consents to the terms and
conditions stated in company policies, which are incorporated herein by reference and
made an integral part hereof.
8. Entirety of Agreement – The parties hereby agree that this Agreement and those which
are incorporated herein by reference constitute the entire employment contract and
supersedes all prior arrangements, whether verbal or written.

In witness whereof, the parties have signed this agreement on the above date.

________________________________
Eye Candy Restaurant by RICHARD BLAKE
(Employer)

_________________________
MONICA
(Employee)
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

QUEZON CITY ) s.s.
x- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

BEFORE ME, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, this 15 th day of February, 2019,
personally appeared;

Name Valid ID Issued on/ Issued at

Richard Blake CTC No. 2345 05-21-2021
Monica CTC No. 6785 06-10-2021

known to me to be the persons who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledge to me
that the same is their voluntary act and deed.

This instrument refers to a REGULAR EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT consisting of 03

pages, including the page on which this acknowledgment is written, has been signed on the right
margin of each and every page thereof by the parties and their instrumental witnesses, and sealed
with my notarial seal.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL on the date and at the place above written

JOEY TRIBOLI
Notary Public
UNTIL DECEMBER 18, 2019
PTR NO. 696969

Doc No. 696;

Page No. 69;
Book No. V;
Series of 2019
TO: MR. RICHARD BRAKE

FROM: ATTY. CAROL ANNE T. DELOS REYES

DATE: MARCH 03, 2022

RE: DEFENSES IN THE NON-COMPETE CONTRACT

KEY FACTS

1. On May 20, 2020, Ms. Monica was employed by Mr. Chandler Bang as
Head Chef at the Bing Bang Café.

2. Before Ms. Monica was started working at the Cafe, Mr. Bang presented the
employment contract for the position of Head Chef to her.

3. According to the contract, as the Head Chef of the Café, she will design
menus that enhance customers’ culinary experience while keeping up high
quality; ensure that all food preparation is in accordance with regulatory
guidelines; hire, train, and mange staff about proper kitchen sanitization
methods; and ensure that all food preparation is in accordance with
regulatory guidelines.

4. It was also stated in the contract that for a period of two (2) years after Ms.
Monica is no longer employed by the Bing Bang Café, Ms. Monica will not,
directly or in directly, engage in any business activity which competes with
the Company within Metro Manila.

ISSUE

Whether the non-complete contract is valid?

BRIEF ANSWER

No, the non-compete agreement executed between Mr. Chandler Bang as the
employer and Ms. Monica as the employee is not valid because of its unreasonable
period and the agreement sought to be enforced is overly broad.
 DISCUSSION

A non-compete clause1 is a deed or an agreement forming part of the

employment contract, which prohibits an employee within a certain period from
and after the termination of his/her employment from either: commencing a similar
business, profession or trade; or working in an entity with conflicting interest or
that is engaged in a similar business that competes with the employer. This clause
is recognized and considered as a product of a valid exercise of management
prerogative that takes effect after the termination of employer-employee
relationship.

Employment contracts in the Philippines are allowed to contain non-compete

clauses wherein an employee may be restricted from carrying out certain activities
both during and after his or her employment.

In the case of Tiu vs. Platinum Plans Phils. Inc. (G.R. No. 163512, 28 February
2007)2, the Supreme Court explained:

As early as 1916, we already had the occasion to discuss the validity of a

non-involvement clause. In Ferrazzini v. Gsell, we said that such clause was
unreasonable restraint of trade and therefore against public policy. In
Ferrazzini, the employee was prohibited from engaging in any business or
occupation in the Philippines for a period of five years after the termination
of his employment contract and must first get the written permission of his
employer if he were to do so. The Court ruled that while the stipulation was
indeed limited as to time and space, it was not limited as to trade. Such
prohibition, in effect, forces an employee to leave the Philippines to work
should his employer refuse to give a written permission.

In G. Martini, Ltd. v. Glaiserman (G.R. No. 13699, November 12, 1918) 3, the
Court also declared that the non-compete clause was void for being an
unreasonable restraint of trade. In this case, the employee was prohibited from
engaging in any business similar to that of his employer for a period of one year.
Since the employee was employed only in connection with the purchase and export
of abaca, among the many businesses of the employer, the Court considered the
restraint too broad since it effectively prevented the employee from working in any
1
https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/09/09/legal-advice/dearpao/the-non-compete-clause/766355#:~:text=A
%20non%2Dcompete%20clause%20is,conflicting%20interest%20or%20that%20is
2
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f4ec604d2c970cba3000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False
3
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f4ec75f5a3dc37c93000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False
other business similar to his employer even if his employment was limited only to
one of its multifarious business activities.

In Consulta v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 145443, March 18, 2005) 4, the Court
considered a non-involvement clause in accordance with Article 1306 of the Civil
Code which states:

ART. 1306. The contracting parties 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.

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. The Court 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 principal’s business. Further, the
prohibition applied only for one year after the termination of the agent’s contract
and was therefore a reasonable restriction designed to prevent acts prejudicial to
the employer.

As mentioned earlier, non-compete agreements are allowed here in the Philippines.

These non-compete clauses are valid and enforceable as long as there are
reasonable limitations as to time, trade, and place. However, there are several
defenses that may invalidate the non-complete clause.

In the case of Rivera vs. Solidbank Corporation (G.R. No. 163269, April 19,
2006)5, the Court stated that:

Restrictive covenants are enforceable in this jurisdiction unless they are

unreasonable. And in order to determine whether restrictive covenants are
reasonable or not, the following factors should be considered:(a) whether the
covenant protects a legitimate business interest of the employer; (b) whether
the covenant creates an undue burden on the employee; (c) whether the
covenant is injurious to the public welfare; (d) whether the time and
territorial limitations contained in the covenant are reasonable; and (e)
whether the restraint is reasonable from the standpoint of public policy.

4
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f4ec9fe1512e757cc000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False
5
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f4ecb494e7a7f422c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False
 In the case at bar, Monica signed the contract with the a non-compete clause
stating that for a period of two (2) years she is no longer employed by the Bing
Bang Café, she will not, directly or in directly, engage in any business activity
which competes with the Cafe within Metro Manila.

Monica is prohibited to engage in any business activity which competes with

the Café within Metro Manila. However, Monica’s only source of income is her
work as a chef. It is the job that she studied and trained to do. The restrain within
Metro Manila should be considered too broad for Monica’s place of residence is in
Quezon City. She has not lived in any municipality outside of Metro Manila.
Therefore, finding a work outside of Metro Manila will cause hardship for Monica
and impede her living situation.

In connection to this, the period of two (2) years should also be considered
unreasonable. Since she has only been employed as a chef her whole life, this will
prevent Monica from being employed in any other work similar or in connection to
her work as Head Chef in Bing Bang Café. The period of two (2) is not a
reasonable restriction designed to prevent acts prejudicial to the employer.

Thus, the non-compete contract between Mr. Chandler Bang and Monica
clearly provides a restraint, which is far greater than the protection that it sought to
establish.