You are on page 1of 3

Quintanar v. Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines Inc,. G.R. No.

210565, 28 June 2016.

MENDOZA, J.

FACTS: Complainants were former employees of Coca-Cola (CC)


as regular Route Helpers,* they were direct hires of the company
during the period of 1984 to 2000. After sometime, the
complainants were transferred successively as agency workers to
the different manpower agencies, the latest being respondent
Interserve Management and Manpower Resources, Inc.
Complainants filed a case for illegal dismissal against CC. They
contended that they were regular employees of the latter and
could only be dismissed for just and authorized cause. CC,
however, denied the existence of an employer-employee
relationship with the complainants. CC maintained that
respondent Interserve was the employer of the complainants
with whom it has a service agreement.
LA and NLRC were consistent in holding that ER-EE relationship
exists and, consequently, that complainants were illegally
dismissed. CA, however, overturned.
ISSUE/S: (1) Does an employment relationship exist between the
route helpers and CC even if during the course of their
employment they were transferred to a labor contractor?
(2) Can a contractor be considered engaged in labor only
contracting despite its registration with the DOLE as an
independent contractor and possession of substantial capital?
(3) Was there a valid termination and thereby a valid severance
of employment relationship when complainants were transferred
to manpower agencies?
RULING: [Issue 1] Yes. In this case, the SC, guided by stare
decisis, applied its position in prior cases involving the Routine
Helpers and CC. The Court ruled that that an employment
relationship existed between the parties for the following
reasons:
1) Routine Helpers perform functions necessary and desirable,
even indispensable, in the usual business or trade of Coca- Cola
Philippines, Inc;
2) SC pronouncements in prior cases that Interserve is a labor-
only contractor;**
3) the employees performed work which was directly related to
the principal business of petitioner; and
4) in the service agreements between CC and the manpower
agencies, CC still exercised the right of control over the
employees.
[Issue 2] Yes. The possession of substantial capital is only one
element. Labor-only contracting exists when any of the two
elements is present, that is, such employees are performing
activities directly related to the principal business of the
employer, and lack of substantial capital or investment. Thus,
even if the Court would indulge Coca-Cola and admit that
Interserve had more than sufficient capital or investment in the
form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, still, it
cannot be denied that the petitioners were performing activities
which were directly related to the principal business of such
employer. Also, it has been ruled that no absolute figure is set for
what is considered 'substantial capital' because the same is
measured against the type of work which the contractor is
obligated to perform for the principal.
[Issue 3] No. Even granting that the petitioners were last
employed by Interserve, the record is bereft of any evidence that
would show that the petitioners voluntarily resigned from their
employment with Coca-Cola only to be later hired by Interserve.
Other than insisting that the petitioners were last employed by
Interserve, Coca-Cola failed not only to show by convincing
evidence how it severed its employer relationship with the
petitioners, but also to prove that the termination of its
relationship with them was made through any of the grounds
sanctioned by law.
-oOo-

*Their duties consist of distributing bottled Coca-Cola products to the stores


and customers in their assigned areas/routes, and they were paid salaries
and commissions at the average of P3,000.00 per month.
**since it did not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools,
equipment, machineries, and work premises. (Agito case)

You might also like