Ollendorff v Abrahamson, G.R. No. 13228, September 13, 1918 CASE DIGEST

 Facts:

    The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing ladies' embroidered underwear for export. On the 10th of September 1915, the petitioner and respondent entered into a contract, whereby the respondent entered the employ of the petitioner and worked for him until April 1916. The respondent, on account of ill health, left the petitioner's employ and went to the United States. Some months after, the respondent returned to Manila as the manager of a corporation which turned out the same class of goods as that of the petitioner. The petitioner commenced this action, the purpose of which is to prevent by injunction any further breach of that part of the respondents' contract of employment by which he agreed to not enter into or engage himself directly or indirectly in a similar competitive business to that of the petitioner for a period of five years from the date of the agreement. The respondent argues that the contract is void for being restrictive of trade.

Issue:

    WoN the contract of employment is valid?

Ruling:

(Article 1159; 1305, 1315)

    Yes, the contract of employment is valid.

    If there is one thing more than another which is essential to the trade and commerce of this country, it is the inviolability of a contract deliberately entered into; and to allow a person of mature age, and not impose upon, to enter into a contract, to obtain the benefit of it, and then to repudiate it and the obligation which he has undertaken, is prima facie, at all events, contrary to the interest of any and every country.

    The public policy which allows a person to obtain employment on certain terms understood by and agreed to by him, and to repudiate his contract, conflicts with, and must, to avail the defendant, for some sufficient reason, prevail over, the manifest public policy, which, as a rule, holds him to his bond.