This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-08-24 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Public policy has been defined as that principle under which freedom of contract or private dealing is restricted for the good of the community.[95] Under the principles relating to the doctrine of public policy, as applied to the law of contracts, courts of justice will not recognize or uphold a transaction when its object, operation, or tendency is calculated to be prejudicial to the public welfare, to sound morality or to civic honesty.[96] | |||||
|
2009-11-24 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Here, any damage petitioner may suffer is easily subject to mathematical computation and, if proven, is fully compensable by damages.[34] Thus, a preliminary injunction is not warranted. As previously held in Golding v. Balatbat,[35] the writ of injunction -- | |||||
|
2006-12-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Thus, restrictions upon trade may be upheld when not contrary to public welfare and not greater than is necessary to afford a fair and reasonable protection to the party in whose favor it is imposed.[18] Even contracts which prohibit an employee from engaging in business in competition with the employer are not necessarily void for being in restraint of trade. | |||||