Case Digest (G.R. No. 163512)
Facts:
Daisy B. Tiu v. Platinum Plans Phil., Inc., G.R. No. 163512, February 28, 2007, the Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. The petition seeks review of the Court of Appeals Decision dated January 20, 2004 and its Resolution of May 4, 2004, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 261, decision of February 28, 2002 ordering petitioner to pay respondent P100,000 as liquidated damages for breach of a non-involvement clause.Platinum Plans Philippines, Inc. (respondent) is a pre-need corporation that employed Daisy B. Tiu (petitioner) as Division Marketing Director from 1987–1989 and rehired her on January 1, 1993 as Senior Assistant Vice‑President and Territorial Operations Head for its Hong Kong and ASEAN operations under a five‑year employment contract. The written agreement contained a non‑involvement provision prohibiting the employee, during employment and for two years after separation, from engaging in or being involved with any entity in the same pre‑need industry, with a P100,000 liquidated‑damages clause for breach.
Petitioner ceased reporting for work on September 16, 1995, and in November 1995 joined Professional Pension Plans, Inc. as Vice‑President for Sales, a competitor in the pre‑need industry. Respondent filed suit for damages in the RTC of Pasig, alleging breach of the non‑involvement clause and claiming P100,000 compensatory (liquidated) damages, P200,000 moral, P100,000 exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
The RTC (Branch 261) found the two‑year restriction reasonable and not contrary to public policy and ordered petitioner to pay P100,000 as damages. The RTC denied attorney’s fees for lack of evidence. On appeal, the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CV No. 74972 affirmed the RTC’s decision, holding the clause binding and enforceable. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and she brough...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the two‑year non‑involvement clause in petitioner’s employment contract valid and enforceable, or is it void as against public policy?
- Is the stipulated P100,000 liquidated damages clause penal, excessive, or otherwise subject to equi...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)