Practice question
A clause bars a former employee from every occupation throughout the Philippines for five years without written permission. Which consideration weighs strongly against it under the precedent discussed in Tiu?
- Its broad reach makes it automatically necessary
- It effectively prevents livelihood across unrelated trades rather than reasonably protecting a defined business interest
- Any written permission clause is conclusively valid
- Five years is always the statutory maximum
- A national restriction can never be examined by a court
Legal references
- Tiu v.Platinum Plans, discussion of Ferrazzini: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_163512_2007.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.