Please answer and explain clearly and concisely. Explain your answer using the law as legal basis:

CHICKY entered into an employment contract with SOLAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS, represented by its Operations Manager, MUNDO MISTIKO. In their contract, it was agreed that due to the training to be provided by SOLAR, CHICKY would be employed for a term of three years and that CHICKY could not be employed with a competitor of SOLAR for a period of 6 months from the date of her termination or resignation from the company. Further stipulated in their contract is the provision that violation of the non-competition clause in their contract would make CHICKY liable to pay a penalty of P300,000.00, in addition to other damages that may be suffered by the company. CHICKY completed her 3-year term with SOLAR but one month after, she commenced working with FULLMOON TELECOM, a competitor. SOLAR sued CHICKY for the payment of P300,000.00 plus indemnity for moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P300,000.00 each. CHICKY claimed that she should not be held liable for moral and exemplary damages since the penalty of P300,000.00 established in their contract already took the place of liability for damages. SOLAR disagreed, claiming that the stipulation on additional liability for damages is valid. Whose contention is correct?