Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Dela Cruz

DOCTRINES

Where the contractors were merely suppliers of labor, the contracted personnel, engaged in component functions in the main business of the company under the latter’s supervision and control, cannot but be regular company employees.

SUMMARY:

Respondents Dela Cruz et. al wanted to be regular employees of Coca-cola hence they filed a complaint. They alleged that as route helpers, their jobs are necessary and desirable to the usual business of company. Coca-cola denied this by saying that it entered intro contract of services with Peerless and Excellent. Issue is w/n CA erred in finding that there was ER-EE. NO. The court found out that the contractor’s obligation was merely to supply labor. In addition, taking into account nature and the complexity of coca’s business meant that respondents were really necessary and desirable in the regular business of petitioner.

FACTS

Respondents Dela Cruz and company filed complaints with money claims for regularization against Coca-Cola Bottlers (company) and Peers Integrated Service (contractor1). Respondents claim to be regular employees based on the fact that they are “route helpers” which are necessary and desirable to regular business of the employer. They also claimed that they worked under the control and supervision of the company while the contractors did not have sufficient capital making said contract a labor-only contract. The company denied the relationship stating that they entered into contracts of services with Peers and Excellent (contractor2) who retained the right to select, hire, dismiss, supervise, control and discipline and pay the salaries of all personnel. They also pointed out that they are in the business of manufacturing, not distribution, hence not necessary and desirable

ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in holding that there was an ER-EE. (NO)

HELD:

The CA noted that both the contracts for Peerless and the Excellent show that their obligation was solely to provide the company with “the services of contractual employees,” and nothing more. These contracted services were for the handling and delivery of the company’s products and allied services. Following D.O. 18-02 and the contracts that spoke purely of the supply of labor.

The case of Magsalin described in a very significant way the manufacture of soft drinks and the company’s sales and distribution activities in relation with one another. The CA was correct when

it concluded that the contracted personnel who served as route helpers were really engaged in functions directly related to the overall business of the petitioner. This led to the further CA conclusion that the contracted personnel were under the company’s supervision and control since sales and distribution were in fact not the purported contractors’ independent, discrete and separable activities, but were component parts of sales and distribution operations that the company controlled in its soft drinks business.