Case 74: Daisy Tiu vs Platinum Pans Phil, Ine,

Facts

Respondent Platinum Plans Philippines, Inc, is a domestic corporation engaged in the pre-need industry.
From 1987

1989, petibioner Daisy B. Tiu was its Division Marketing Director.

On January 1, 1993, respondent re-hired petitioner as Senior Assistant Vice-President and Territorial
Operationa Head

in charge of its Hongkong and Asean operations. The parties executed a contract of employment valid
for 5 years.

On September 16, 1995, petitioner stopPped reporting for work. In November 1995, she became the
Vice-President 1

Sales of Professional Pension Plans, Inc., a corporation engaged also in the pre-need industry.

Consequentiy, respondent sued petitioner for damages before the RTG. Respondent alleged, among
others,

pettioners employment with Professional Pension Plans, Inc. violated the non-involvement clause in her
contract

employment. It contained provisions prohibiting the employee from working in the same business (i.e.,
pre-need indust

as her employer for 2 years. The liquidated damage is set at P100k.

Petitioner avers that the non-nvolvement clause is offensive to public policy since the restraint imposed
is much grea

than what is necessary to afford respondent a fair and reasonable protecton. She adds that since the
products sald in

pre-need industry are more or less the same, the transfer to a rival company is acceptable. Petiioner
also points out t

respondent did not invest in her training or improvement. At the tme she joined respondent, she
already had

knowledge and expertise required in the pre-need industry. Finally, petitianer argues that a strict
application of the n

involvement clause would deprive her of the right to engage in the only work she knows.

Issues
WN the non-involvement cdause is valid?

Hald.

Yes. A non-involvement clause is not necessarily void for being in restraint of trade as long as there are
reasona

limitations as to time, trade, and pl