Title
Portillo vs. Rudolf Lietz, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 196539
Decision Date
Oct 10, 2012
Portillo resigned, joined a competitor, and faced liquidated damages claims under a goodwill clause. Lietz Inc. sought to offset her unpaid wages, but the Supreme Court ruled compensation inapplicable, reinstating her claims.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 196539)

Facts of the Case

On 3 May 1991, Portillo entered into an employment contract with Rudolf Lietz, which included a “Goodwill Clause,” prohibiting her from engaging in any competitive business for three years following her resignation. After 10 years, Portillo was promoted to Sales Representative and signed an updated agreement reiterating this clause. She resigned from Lietz Inc. on 6 June 2005, intending to start a rice dealership, which Lietz Inc. contended would violate the Goodwill Clause. Subsequently, Portillo was hired by a direct competitor, Ed Keller Philippines, leading Lietz Inc. to claim damages for breach of the contract.

Procedural History

Portillo filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for unpaid wages and commissions, totaling P110,662.16, which Lietz Inc. admitted to owe. However, they raised a claim for liquidated damages amounting to P869,633.09 due to the alleged breach of the Goodwill Clause. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Portillo and ordered payment of her claims. The NLRC affirmed this ruling. Lietz Inc. then sought recourse before the Court of Appeals, which initially upheld the NLRC but later modified its ruling, allowing compensation between the claims.

Legal Issues Presented

The central legal issue is whether Portillo’s monetary claims for unpaid wages can be offset against Lietz Inc.'s claim for liquidated damages based on the Goodwill Clause. Portillo contested the modified decision of the Court of Appeals, alleging several acts of grave abuse of discretion including the jurisdictional errors of the lower courts.

Jurisdictional and Legal Basis

The Court acknowledged a procedural error in Portillo's filing a special civil action for certiorari rather than a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. However, it opted to resolve the matter on the merits rather than dismissing it outright. The Court stated that claims of this nature fall under Article 217 of the Labor Code, which provides original and exclusive jurisdiction to Labor Arbiters for claims arising from the employer-employee relationship.

Findings on Legal Compensation

The Court found that there is no reasonable causal connection between Portillo's claims for unpaid wages and Lietz Inc.'s claim for liquidated damages because the latter pertains to a post-employment obligation created by the Goodwill Clause. The petitioner’s claim arises from her employment, while the respondent’s claim deals with a breach of the contract after the employment relationship had ended. This differentiation places the claims wi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.