Case Digest Quintanar vs. Coca-cola

QUINTANAR vs. COCA-COLA G.R. No. 210565 28 JUNE 2016

EMMANUEL D. QUINTANAR, et. al., petitioner

vs

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS, PHILIPPINES, INC., respondent

Petition for review on certiorari of CA decision & resolution Justice Mendoza : Petitioners were directly-hired employees of re spondent as Route Helpers. After working for quite some time, S T they were allegedly transferred as agency workers to several manpower agencies. C F

A

When DOLE conducted an inspection to determine if labor standards were being complied with, petitioners were declared to be regular employees and that respondent is liable to pay. Petitioners were thereafter dismissed on various dates, and their claims settled later. However, the settlement did not include the issues on reinstatement and payment of CBA benefits. Hence, petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Respondent alleged that there was no ER -EE relationship between them. LA declared that petitioners were illegally dismissed, and ordered respondent to reinstate them and to pay full backwages. NLRC affirmed the LA decision.

:

CA reversed & set aside NLRC decision. The appellate court held that the m anpower agency is an independent contractor that exercises control over the petitioners. (1) Whether or not an ER-EE relationship exists between the petitioners and respondent. S

U

E

(2) Whether the manpower agencies are labor-only contractors. :

YES. E

L

D

SI

YES. H

R

A

T

OI

:

CA decision set aside. The Court held that petitioners still enjoyed an ER -EE relationship with respondent since becoming employees of manpower agencies. To determine whether an employment should be considered regular or casual, the applicable test is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. It has been established in jurisprudence that Route Helpers are regular employees of respondent. The repeated rehiring of respondent workers and the continuing need for their services clearly attest to the necessity or desirability of their services in the regular conduct of the business or trade of petitioner c ompany. Furthermore, it has already been established in jurisprudence that the manpower services were a labor-only contractor since since the work performed by the “supplied” employees were indispensable indispensable to the principal business of respondent. In fact, the manpower agencies w ere found to not have substantial capital or investment or tool to engage in job contracting. contract ing. Finally, the Court determined the ex istence of an ER-EE relationship between the parties since the contract of service between the respondent and the manpower services showed that the former indeed exercised the power of control over the complainants therein.