Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 51 views

    34 Phil 697

    Uploaded by

    Dan Locsin
    Carlos Gsell discharged Anselmo Ferrazzini from his position as a foreman at Gsell's umbrella factory without providing the required six months notice outlined in Ferrazzini's employment contract. Ferrazzini sued for wrongful termination. Gsell claimed he had cause for termination due to absenteeism and insubordination. The trial court ruled in favor of Ferrazzini. On appeal, the court upheld the lawful termination but found that a clause in the contract prohibiting Ferrazzini from working for other Philippine enterprises without permission for 5 years was unenforceable as it unduly restricted trade.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    34 Phil 697

    Uploaded by

    Dan Locsin
    51 views1 page
    Carlos Gsell discharged Anselmo Ferrazzini from his position as a foreman at Gsell's umbrella factory without providing the required six months notice outlined in Ferrazzini's employment contract. Ferrazzini sued for wrongful termination. Gsell claimed he had cause for termination due to absenteeism and insubordination. The trial court ruled in favor of Ferrazzini. On appeal, the court upheld the lawful termination but found that a clause in the contract prohibiting Ferrazzini from working for other Philippine enterprises without permission for 5 years was unenforceable as it unduly restricted trade.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    03. 34 Phil 697

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Carlos Gsell discharged Anselmo Ferrazzini from his position as a foreman at Gsell's umbrella factory without providing the required six months notice outlined in Ferrazzini's employment contract. Ferrazzini sued for wrongful termination. Gsell claimed he had cause for termination due to absenteeism and insubordination. The trial court ruled in favor of Ferrazzini. On appeal, the court upheld the lawful termination but found that a clause in the contract prohibiting Ferrazzini from working for other Philippine enterprises without permission for 5 years was unenforceable as it unduly restricted trade.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    51 views1 page

    34 Phil 697

    Uploaded by

    Dan Locsin
    Carlos Gsell discharged Anselmo Ferrazzini from his position as a foreman at Gsell's umbrella factory without providing the required six months notice outlined in Ferrazzini's employment contract. Ferrazzini sued for wrongful termination. Gsell claimed he had cause for termination due to absenteeism and insubordination. The trial court ruled in favor of Ferrazzini. On appeal, the court upheld the lawful termination but found that a clause in the contract prohibiting Ferrazzini from working for other Philippine enterprises without permission for 5 years was unenforceable as it unduly restricted trade.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Case 3 - 34 Phil 697

    G.R. No. L-10712 August 10, 1916

    ANSELMO FERRAZZINI, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLOS GSELL, defendant-appellant.

    FACTS:

    Carlos Gsell is engaged in the manufacture of umbrellas, matches and hats.

    Anselmo Ferrazzini was employed by Gsell as foreman in the umbrella factory. At some point, he was
    discharged by Gsell so he filed this case to recover damages for an alleged wrongful discharge.

    Gsell, for his part, admitted he discharged Ferrazzini without "written advice for six months in advance"
    as provided in the contract but alleged that the discharge was lawful on account of absence,
    unfaithfulness, and disobedience of orders. He also sought a counterclaim for further alleged breach by
    Ferrazzini after his discharge (that he cannot enter into employment of any enterprise in the Philippines,
    during his emlpoyment and within 5 years after termination except when given written permission; if he
    does, he will pay Gsell 10k; Gsell was employed in cement industry)

    Trial court favored Ferrazzini and declined to consider counterclaim, so Gsell appealled.

    ISSUES:

    1. Whether or not the the dishcharge was lawful.

    2. Whehter or not the stipulation preventing Ferrazzini to "enter into employment of any enterprise in
    the Philippine Islands, whatever, save and except after obtaining special written permission therefor"
    valid?

    HELD:

    1. The discharge was lawful. The Court looked into whether Gsell has just cause to discharge Ferrazzini;
    Gsell has to prove justification for his act because it was in contravention of the six-month clause in the
    contract; if it was without just cause, it was in violation of the contract Ferrazzini is entitled to recover.

    2. No, because the stipulation is against public policy. Agreements in violation of orden publico must be
    considered as those which conflict with law, whether properly, strictly and wholly a public law (derecho)
    or whether a law of the person, but law which in certain respects affects the interest of society. The
    contract under consideration, tested by the law, rules and principles above set forth, is clearly one in
    undue or unreasonable restraint of trade and therefore against public policy. It is limited as to time and
    space but not as to trade. It is not necessary for the protection of the defendant, as this is provided for
    in another part of the clause. It would force the plaintiff to leave the Philippine Islands in order to obtain
    a livelihood in case the defendant declined to give him the written permission to work elsewhere in this
    country.

    You might also like