Non-payment of non-compete damages does not release employee from non-compete obligation; damages require actual non-competition.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against a lower court ruling that rejected the employee's claim for non-compete damages. The employee argued he resumed work only after the employer failed to pay the first installment, while the employer contended he immediately engaged in competitive activities upon termination. The court held that non-payment of damages does not automatically release the employee from the non-compete obligation, and damages are only due if the employee actually refrains from competing.