Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1370-1379 - Interpretation of Contracts

    Uploaded by

    Sarah Jane Usop
    6 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that a non-compete clause in an employment contract prohibiting an employee from working "for whatsoever capacity" for direct competitors was valid. The Court held the clause was clear and unambiguous, and that allowing the employee to immediately move to a direct competitor could expose the former employer's trade secrets, especially in a competitive industry. Upholding the non-compete clause was a reasonable protection for the employer.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Untitled

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that a non-compete clause in an employment contract prohibiting an employee from working "for whatsoever capacity" for direct competitors was valid. The Court held the clause was clear and unambiguous, and that allowing the employee to immediately move to a direct competitor could expose the former employer's trade secrets, especially in a competitive industry. Upholding the non-compete clause was a reasonable protection for the employer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views1 page

    1370-1379 - Interpretation of Contracts

    Uploaded by

    Sarah Jane Usop
    The Supreme Court ruled that a non-compete clause in an employment contract prohibiting an employee from working "for whatsoever capacity" for direct competitors was valid. The Court held the clause was clear and unambiguous, and that allowing the employee to immediately move to a direct competitor could expose the former employer's trade secrets, especially in a competitive industry. Upholding the non-compete clause was a reasonable protection for the employer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    CENTURY PROPERTY V.

    BABIANO 795 SCRA 671


    1370-1379 – Interpretation of Contracts

    ISSUE: WON “work for whatsoever capacity” under the Confidentiality of Documents and Non-Compete Clause is valid. [YES]

    HELD: Here, the clause is not only clear and ambiguous, but it also expressly provided in no uncertain terms that breach shall result of
    forfeiture.

    To allow Babiano to freely move to direct competitors during and soon after his employment with CPI would make the latter's trade
    secrets vulnerable to exposure, especially in a highly competitive marketing environment. As such, it is only reasonable that CPI and
    Babiano agree on such stipulation in the latter's employment contract in order to afford a fair and reasonable protection to CPI.

    You might also like