Kaalaman tungkol sa non-compete clause

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta - @Magtanong Kay Attorney | August 25, 2022

Dear Chief Acosta,

Nag-apply ako ng trabaho sa cosmetics company bilang chemist. Nang ako ay pumirma sa aking employment contract, nabasa ko na mayroong nakasaad na kung sakaling ako ay magbitiw sa trabaho ay hindi ako maaaring magtrabaho bilang chemist para sa iba pang cosmetics company sa buong bansa ng habambuhay. Legal ba ang probisyon na ito? - Juno

Dear Juno,

Ang probisyon sa employment contract na naglilimita o nagbabawal sa empleyadong nagbitiw na magtrabaho sa katunggaling kompanya ay mas kilala bilang non-compete clause na isang uri ng restrictive covenant. Dapat mong malaman, na ayon sa Artikulo 1159 at 1306 ng New Civil Code of the Philippines:

“Article 1159. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.

x x x

Article 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.”

Ayon sa mga nabanggit na probisyon, ang bawat partido sa kontrata ay may kalayaan na magbigay ng mga probisyon, kondisyon at iba pang kasunduaan kung ang mga ito ay hindi labag sa batas, moralidad, kagandahang-asal o pampublikong panuntunan.

Sa Tiu v. Platinum Plans Phil., Inc. (G.R. No. 163512, 28 February 2007) na isinulat ni Kagalang-galang na dating Kasamang Mahistrado Leonardo A. Quisumbing, ipinaliwanang ng Kagalang-galang na Korte Suprema ang mga alituntunin sa pagtrato sa restrictive covenant sa isang kontrata:

“However, in Del Castillo v. Richmond, we upheld a similar stipulation as legal, reasonable, and not contrary to public policy. In the said case, the employee was restricted from opening, owning or having any connection with any other drugstore within a radius of four miles from the employer’s place of business during the time the employer was operating his drugstore. We said that a contract in restraint of trade is valid provided there is a limitation upon either time or place and the restraint upon one party is not greater than the protection the other party requires.

Finally, in Consulta v. Court of Appeals, we considered a non-involvement clause in accordance with Article 1306 of the Civil Code. 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. We 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.

Conformably then with the aforementioned pronouncements, a non-involvement clause is not necessarily void for being in restraint of trade as long as there are reasonable limitations as to time, trade, and place.” (Binigyang-diin)

Sa iyong sitwasyon, masasabing hindi makatwiran ang non-compete clause sa iyong kontrata sapagkat walang tiyak na limitasyon sa panahon kung kailangan ito dapat sundin. Maituturing din na hindi makatwiran na ang restriction sa iyo ay para sa buong bansa. Kung titingnan, ang limitasyong ipinataw sa iyo ay magtatanggal sa iyo ng buong karapatan na magtrabaho bilang chemist sa cosmetic company. Samakatuwid, maaaring maituring na walang bisa o void ang probisyong ito ng inyong kontrata.

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang inyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa impormasyon na inyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng inyong salaysay.

Maraming salamat sa inyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.