016 Ollendorf v Abrahamson

GR 13228
TOPIC:
PONENTE:

AUTHOR: Keith Meridores

NOTES:

FACTS:

Herein plaintiff Ollendorf and defendant Abrahamson made and entered into Contract o
Agreement. The first part hereby agrees to employ the defendant and the party of th
second obliges himself to work for the plaintiff within the period of two years. Defendan
obligates and binds himself to devote his entire time, attention, energies and industry o
the promotion of the furtherance of the business and interest of the party. Failure on th
said duty shall entitle the plaintiff to discharge and dismiss the defendant. The secon
part of the contract further binds the party that he will not enter whether directly o
indirectly to engage in a similar or competitive business. Under the term of thi
agreement, the plaintiff left the employment due to illness and went to U.S. After hi
departure, the defendant returns to Manila as the Manager of the Philippine Underwea
Company. Defendant admits that both firms turn out the same class of goods and thos
they are exported to the same market. However, he alleged that the said contract wit
the plaintiff was void for it violates the right for free trade. An injunction was applied fo
by the plaintiff and was granted. Defendant alleges, among other things that plaintiff
failed to substantiate his allegation that he suffered pecuniary damage.

ISSUE(S): Whether or not an injunction is proper despite there being no proof of pecuniar

damage?
HELD: Yes
RATIO:

The admitted fact that plaintiff has failed to establish proof of pecuniary damage b
reason of the breach of the contract by defendant by the acts committed prior to th
issuance of the preliminary injunction is, of course, a bar or nay money judgment fo
damages for the breach of contract, but will not justify us in permitting defendant t
continue to break his contract over plaintiffs objection. The injury is a continuous one
The fact that the court may not be able to give damages for that part of the breach of th
contract which had already taken place when its aid was invoked is no reason why i
should countenance a continuance of such disregard of plaintiffs rights.

With respect to the contention that an injunction may only be granted to preven
irreparable injury, the answer is that any continuing breach of a valid negative covenan
is irreparable by the ordinary process of courts of law.

In Gilchirst v Cuddy: irreparable injury is not meant such injury as is beyond th

possibility of repair, or beyond possible compensation in damages, nor necessarily grea
injury or great damage, but that species of injury, whether great or small, that ought no
be submitted to on the one hand or inflicted on the other, and, because it is so large o
the one hand, or so small on the other, is of such constant and frequent recurrence tha
no fair or reasonable redress can be had therefor in a court of law.

The injury done the business of a merchant by illegal or unfair competition is exceedingl
difficult to measure. A diminution of the volume of a business may be due to so man
different causes that it is so often impossible to demonstrate that it has in fact bee
caused by the illegal competition of the defendant.