REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
QUEZON CITY
BRANCH 143

OBP ACADEMY INC. as

represented by BRYAN
U. AGONCILLO
Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. Civil

-versus- Case No. C-ABS-02-
14344-CV
JUDY ANNE REYES, For: Breach of Contract
Defendant. with Damages

x-------------------------------------------x
ANSWER

Defendant, JUDY ANN REYES (“JUDY ANN”), by counsel, and by

way of Answer to the Complaint dated 15 October 2016, respectfully:
I.
ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1. Denies paragraph 1 and Annex A for lack of knowledge and

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof.

1
2. Admits paragraph 2.
3. Admits paragraph 3 insofar as it alleges that plaintiff is
engaged in the business of providing academic programs through
tutorial services, but denies the rest of the allegations for the lack
of knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth thereof.

4. Admits paragraph 4, 5, 6, and 7 subject to the qualification as

discussed below that the Contract of Employment (Annex B) had
been modified and suspended by agreement of the parties, and
that Judy did not breach any provision of the contract.

5. Denies paragraph 8 for containing erroneous conclusions of

facts, the truth being that which is stated in defendant’s special
and affirmative defenses.

6. Admits paragraph 9, subject to the qualifications that the terms

of resignations were pursuant to the agreement of the parties.

7. Admits paragraphs 10 and 11, subject to the qualifications as

discussed below in the special and affirmative defenses.

2
8. Denies paragraph 12 and 13 for containing erroneous
conclusions of facts, the truth being that which is stated in
defendant’s special and affirmative defenses.
9. Denies paragraphs 14 for lack of knowledge and information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof.

10. Denies paragraph 15 for containing erroneous conclusions of

facts, the truth being that which is stated in defendant’s special
and affirmative defenses.

11. Denies paragraph 16 insofar as it alleges that plaintiff was

aggrieved for lack of knowledge and information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth thereof, but admits the existence of the
demand letter dated 24 June 2016.

12. Admits paragraph 17.

13. Admits allegation in paragraph 18 as to the existence of OBP’s

reply-letter dated 21 July 2016, but denies the rest of the
allegations for containing erroneous conclusions of facts and law
the truth being that which is stated Judy’s special and affirmative
defenses.

3
14. Denies paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 for containing
erroneous conclusions of facts and law, the truth being that which
is stated in Judy’s special and affirmative defenses.

II.
SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

15. Judy repleads and incorporates herein, by reference, all the

forgoing allegations of this Answer:

Article 11 of the Contract of

Employment is void.
__________________________

16. Article 11 of the employment contract provides:

“11. A 90-day prior written notice addressed to
the EMPLOYER must be given by the
EMPLOYEE intending to resign and should
secure a written approval of the administration
before resigning or abandoning work. Should
the Employee fail to do so, the EMPOYER
reserves the right to file the necessary legal
action for breach of contract and damages
against the EMPLOYEE.

This provision is void for being contrary to law and

public policy.

4
17. Article 285 of the Labor Code1 provides that a resigning employee
may be obliged to stay for a period of one (1) month before his
resignation takes effect.

18. A period longer than one (1) month violates the law. It is also
contrary to public policy that protects the worker’s right and
freedom to choose his employment.

Assuming that Art. 11 is not void,

Plaintiff is estopped from forcing
defendant to comply.
_______________________________

19. Sometime in the first week of April, Judy approached Jolina

Dela Alas (“Jolina”, OBP Academy’s Human Resource Manager, to
request a recommendation letter for her application as a teacher in
Green Eagle High School (“GEHS”).

20. Jolina told Judy that she could not issue her a recommendation
letter until she submits a resignation letter. Thus, on 13 April 2016,
defendant tendered her resignation letter, received by Bryan U.
Agoncillo (“Bryan”), the Officer-in-Charge of OBP Academy.

21. A few days before her interview with GEHS, Judy called Jolina
to follow up on her recommendation letter. Jolina advised that the
recommendation letter was with Bryan. When Judy called Bryan,
however, he told her that he never received the recommendation
letter.

22. On 19 April 2016, Judy proceeded with her interview in GEHS

without a recommendation letter from OBP Academy.

1Art. 285. Termination by the Employee –

a. An employee may be terminate without just cause the employer-employee
relationship by serving a written notice on the employer at least one (1) month in
advance. The employer upon whom no such notice was served may hold the
employee liable for damages.

5
23. On 12 May 2016, Judy learned that she was accepted as a Math
teacher in GEHS.

24. The following day, Judy went to Bryan to inform him of her
acceptance as a teacher in GEHS. She also asked Bryan if the
effectivity date on her resignation letter could be earlier than that
stated in her resignation letter.

24.1. Judy did not see any problem with this as OBP Academy
had traditionally relaxed the rule on the ninety (90) days advance
notice. In fact, the nine (9) former tutors of OBP Academy who
resigned prior to Judy did not also comply with the said ninety (90)
day period when they left OBP Academy.

25. To expedite her release from OBP, Judy broached the idea of
OBP Academy terminating her services. To this suggestion, Bryan
asked under what ground should the termination be, to be which
Judy answered, “absences po.” Bryan agreed and told Judy that he
will talk to Jolina about it.

26. Next day after work, Judy went back to Bryan to remind him
that she would no longer go to work beginning 16 May 2016 as per
their agreement. Bryan replied, “Okay, ako na bahala kay Jolina.”

27. Acting on Bryan’s assurance, Judy stopped going to OBP

Academy and started her work in GEHS.

28.Bryan, the OIC of OBP (and therefore OBP’s agent), made Judy
believe that she was cleared by OBP as Bryan assured her that he
will take care of all the remaining matters pertaining to her
resignation, whihch includes the waiver of the 90 day written
notice rule. OBP Academy, therefore, is estopped from forcing
Judy to comply with the 90-day notice rule.

Article 9 of the Contract of

6
Employment is void.
_________________________

29. Article 9 of the employment contract provides:

“9. The EMPLOYEE herebu binds herself that
within five (5) years from her cessation from
employement with the EMPLOYER, she shall
not seek or accept employment from any
other tutorial or review services or learning
center nor shall she engage in the same line
of business.”

This policy is likewise void for being contrary to law and public
policy.

30. The restrictions under Article 9 are unreasonable and

oppressive as to time and trade.

30.1. As to time, the period of five (5) years is offensive to

public policy since the restraint imposed is longer than what is
necessary to afford OBP Academy a fair and reasonable
protection.

30.2. Likewise, as to trade, to insist on the application of the 5-

year prohibition would deprive Judy of her right to engage in her
chosen profession or vocation, which also constitutes a grave
violation of her constitutional right to property.

Assuming Article 9 is not void,

GEHS is not a competitor of
OBP Academy.
_______________________________

31. More, what Article 9 prohibits is employment in another

tutorial or review center, or any learning center similar to a

7
 tutorial or review center. In this case, GEHS is not a tutorial or
review center, but an academic institution.

32. There being no breach, defendant cannot be held liable for

actual damages, attorney’s fees and costs of litigation.

III.
COUNTERCLAIM

33. Defendant repleads the following foregoing allegations.

34. For having instituted this baseless, malicious, and unfounded
lawsuit, knowing fully well that it has no cause of action against
defendant, thereby causing defendant serious anxiety, mental
anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and social
humiliation, and requiring her to engage the services of counsel,
plaintiff should be made liable to defendant in the amount of
One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) by way of actual,
moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully prays that the Complaint be

dismissed and that plaintiff be made libale on defendant’s
counterclaim.

Other just and equitable reliefs prayed for.

8
 Makati City for the Quezon City, 13 December 2016.

ATTYS. MADELYN MAY ONG, SABRINA

DAYAO, and LEONARD PUA
Counsels for Defendant
Judy Anne Santos
Teacher’s Place, 33rd St., Bonifacio Global City, Taguig, 1634 Metro
Manila
MSL@gmail.com

By:

ATTY. MADELYN MAY M. ONG

IBP No. 1692148 – 11/04/16; Quezon City
PTR No. A-1637225 - 11/04/16; Quezon City
Roll No. 14366
MCLE Exemption No. III-000827

COPY FURNISHED
(Through Personal Service)

BAÑADERA, DIPLOMA, REGIS & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Room 201 MN Square Building
678 Shaw Blvd.,
Pasig City
Tel. No.: 531-5257
Fax No.: 531-3234
E-mail: BDR&associates@gmail.com

9
10