“With respect to the charge of dishonesty and conflict of interest,

evidence on record shows that private respondent purchased 2,000

cases of Pepsi products in his personal capacity, aware that the
prices thereof (Pepsi products) will increase. However, he made it
appear that said products was bought by a certain customer who later
executed an affidavit denying such purchase. When the price of
Pepsi products increased, private respondent sold as his own the
2,000 cases at the adjusted price thereby accruing benefit to himself.
In said fictitious sale, he utilized petitioner's resources and company
time for which the former was duly paid. By making such transaction,
he also engaged himself in business competing with his employer
and thus comes in conflict of interest against petitioner. He cannot
serve himself and petitioner at the same time all at the expense of the
latter. It would he unfair to compensate private respondent who does
not devote his time and effort to his employer. The primary duty of the
employee is to carry out his employer's policies.” (PEPSI-COLA
DISTRIBUTORS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., vs. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, THIRD DIVISION G.R. No.
106831 May 6, 1997)

“Loyalty of an employee to his employer consists of certain very basic

and common sense obligations. An employee must not, while
employed, act contrary to the employer’s interest.82 The scope of the
duty of loyalty that an employee owes to his employer may vary with
the nature of their relationship. Employees occupying a position of
trust and confidence owe a higher duty than those performing low-
level tasks. Assisting an employee’s competitor can even constitute a
breach of the employee’s duty of loyalty. An employee’s self-dealing
may breach that duty.83

However, it has been ruled that A reality of contemporary life is

that many families will consist of two wage earners, one wage earner
with two jobs, or both. For some employees, particularly those
earning low or modest incomes, second sources of income are an
economic necessity. For them, a second job or "moonlighting" is the
only way to make ends meet. Conversely, employers need the
assurance that employees will not disserve them by furthering their
own interests or those of competitors at the employers’ expense.84
 A slight assistance to a direct competitor could constitute a
breach of the employee’s duty of loyalty. However, when competition
is indirect or minimal, the employer may be required to show that the
employee received substantial assistance from the competitor. If an
employee usurped a corporate opportunity or secretly profited from a
competitive activity, the employer may receive the value of the lost
opportunity or the secret profit.85

An employee’s skill, aptitude, and other subjective knowledge

obtained in the course of employment are not the property of his
employer.86 However, an employee occupying a managerial position
or office is obliged to protect the trade secret of his employer
consisting of formula, process, device or compilation which it uses in
its business and gives it an opportunity to obtain an advantage over
competitors who do not know of such trade secret. However, the rule
does not apply to a matter of public knowledge or of general
knowledge within the industry.87 Moreover, an employer has a
protectible interest in the customer relationships of its former
employee established and/or nurtured while employed by the
employer, and is entitled to protect itself from the risk that a former
employee might appropriate customers by taking unfair advantage of
the contract developed while working for the employer.88 While acting
as an agent of his employer, an employee owes the duty of fidelity
and loyalty. Being a fiduciary, he cannot act inconsistently with his
agency or trust. He cannot solicit his employer’s customers or co-
employees for himself or for a business competitor of his employer. If
such employee or officer connives with and induces another to betray
his employer in favor of a business competitor of his employer, he is
held accountable for his mischief.”89 (AGRIPINO V. MOLINA vs.
PACIFIC PLANS, INC. G.R. No. 165476, March 10, 2006)