FIRST DIVISION
BUENAVENTURA
C.
MAGSALIN
AND COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC.,
Petitioners, |
G.
R.
No. 148492
May 9, 2003
-versus-
NATIONAL
ORGANIZATION
OF WORKING MEN (N.O.W.M.), RODOLFO MELGAR,ARNEL DELOS SANTOS,
SILVERIO MINDAJAO, RUBEN NAVALES, BOBBY AUSTERO,RAYMUNDO GAUDICOS,
CHRISTOPHER PERALTA, GIOVANI DELA CRUZ, JOSELITOOCCIDENTAL, AMADO
BODASAN, FREDERIK MAGALINO, CHITO OCCIDENTAL,ALEXANDER DELOS
SANTOS, DEONIL MESA, OLIVER VILLAFLOR, ROBERTOTUMONBA, RODRIGO
ANGELES, ROMMEL ABAD, FELIX AVENIDO, ARMANDO AMOR,FREDERICK DE GUZMAN,
CEA CARMELO, MARIANO CAÑETE, ALBERTO ANTONES,ROMEO BASQUINAS,
ROGELIO MALINIS, EDMUNDO BAYOS, RAMIL REVADO, JOELPIATA, OSCAR
MALINAY,
ROBERT REYES, JIMMY REYES, RETCHEL HAUTEA,VICTORINO TORRALBA,
NOEL RUBAI, RENATO DE OCAMPO, JESUS NOZON, JOEL
MALINIS, REYNALDO
GREGORY, MICHAEL RUBIA, JOSELITO VILLANUEVA,LEONARDO MONDINA,
EDUARDO BELLA, WILFREDO BELLA, ALBERTO MAGTIBAY,MIGUEL CUESTA, JOSE
MARCOS RODRIGUEZ III, HERMINIO ROFLO, ERNIE CHAVEZ,NELSON LOGRONIO,
LEONILO GALAPIN, REY PANGILINAN, LARRY JAVIER, MATIASARBUES, RONILO
AUSTERO,
ADEMAR ESTUITA, EDWIN DE LEON, RANDY DE CHAVEZ,
Respondents. |
D E C I S I
O N
VITUG,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils.,
Inc., herein petitioner, engaged the services of respondent workers as
"sales route helpers" for a limited period of five months. After
five months, respondent workers were employed by petitioner company on
a day-to-day basis. According to petitioner company, respondent
workers
were hired to substitute for regular sales route helpers whenever the
latter
would be unavailable or when there would be an unexpected shortage of
manpower
in any of its work places or an unusually high volume of work.
The
practice was for the workers to wait every morning outside the gates of
the sales office of petitioner company. If thus hired, the
workers
would then be paid their wages at the end of the day.
Ultimately, respondent
workers asked petitioner company to extend to them regular
appointments.
Petitioner company refused. On 07 November 1997, twenty-three
(23)
of the "temporary" workers (herein respondents) filed with the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint for the regularization of
their employment with petitioner company. The complaint was
amended
a number of times to include other complainants that ultimately totaled
fifty-eight (58) workers. Claiming that petitioner company
meanwhile
terminated their services, respondent workers filed a notice of strike
and a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice with
the
NLRC.cralaw:red
On 01 April 1998, the
parties agreed to submit the controversy, including the issue raised in
the complaint for regularization of employment, for voluntary
arbitration.
On 18 May 1998, the voluntary arbitrator rendered a decision dismissing
the complaint on the thesis that respondents (then complainants) were
not
regular employees of petitioner company.cralaw:red
Respondent workers filed
with the Court of Appeals a petition for review under Rule 43 of the
Rules
of Civil Procedure assailing the decision of the voluntary arbitrator,
therein contending that:chanrobles virtual law library
"1.
The Voluntary Arbitrator committed errors in finding that petitioners
voluntarily
and knowingly agreed to be employed on a day-to-day basis; and
"2.
The Voluntary Arbitrator committed errors in finding that petitioners’
dismissal was valid."[1]chanrobles virtual law library
In its Decision of 11
August
2000, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the ruling of the
voluntary
arbitrator, it concluded:
"WHEREFORE,
the assailed decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator is hereby REVERSED
and
SET ASIDE and anew one is entered:
"1.
Declaring petitioners as regular employees of Coca-Cola Bottlers
Phils.,
Inc. and their dismissal from employment as illegal;
"2.
Ordering respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. to reinstate
petitioners
to their former positions with full backwages, inclusive of allowances
that petitioners had been receiving during their employment and 13th
month
pay, computed from the date of their termination up to the time of
their
actual reinstatement (Paramount Vinyl Product Corp. vs. NLRC, 190 SCRA
526)."[2]chanrobles virtual law library
Petitioner company’s
motion
for reconsideration was denied in a resolution, dated 21 May 2001, of
the
appellate court.
The focal issues revolve
around the matter of whether or not the nature of work of respondents
in
the company is of such nature as to be deemed necessary and desirable
in
the usual business or trade of petitioner that could qualify them to be
regular employees.cralaw:red
The basic law on the
case is Article 280 of the Labor Code. Its pertinent provisions
read:
"Art. 280.
Regular and Casual Employment. - The provisions of written agreement to
the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of
the
parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee
has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or
desirable
in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the
employment
has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or
termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement
of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is
seasonal
in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.chanrobles virtual law library
"An employment
shall
be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph:
Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of
service,
whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a
regular
employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his
employment
shall continue while such activity exists."
Coca-Cola Bottlers
Phils.,
Inc., is one of the leading and largest manufacturers of softdrinks in
the country. Respondent workers have long been in the service of
petitioner company. Respondent workers, when hired, would go with
route salesmen on board delivery trucks and undertake the laborious
task
of loading and unloading softdrink products of petitioner company to
its
various delivery points.chanrobles virtual law library
Even while the language
of law might have been more definitive, the clarity of its spirit and
intent,
i.e., to ensure a "regular" worker’s security of tenure, however, can
hardly
be doubted. In determining whether an employment should be
considered
regular or non-regular, 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. The standard,
supplied
by the law itself, is whether the work undertaken is necessary or
desirable
in the usual business or trade of the employer, a fact that can be
assessed
by looking into the nature of the services rendered and its relation to
the general scheme under which the business or trade is pursued in the
usual course. It is distinguished from a specific undertaking
that
is divorced from the normal activities required in carrying on the
particular
business or trade. But, although the work to be performed is only
for a specific project or seasonal, where a person thus engaged has
been
performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is
not
continuous or is merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and
continuing
need for its performance as being sufficient to indicate the necessity
or desirability of that activity to the business or trade of the
employer.
The employment of such person is also then deemed to be regular with
respect
to such activity and while such activity exists.[3]
The argument of petitioner
that its usual business or trade is softdrink manufacturing and that
the
work assigned to respondent workers as sales route helpers so involves
merely "postproduction activities," one which is not indispensable in
the
manufacture of its products, scarcely can be persuasive. If, as
so
argued by petitioner company, only those whose work are directly
involved
in the production of softdrinks may be held performing functions
necessary
and desirable in its usual business or trade, there would have then
been
no need for it to even maintain regular truck sales route
helpers.
The nature of the work performed must be viewed from a perspective of
the
business or trade in its entirety[4]
and not on a confined scope.chanrobles virtual law library
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 company. The Court
of Appeals has found each of respondents to have worked for at least
one
year with petitioner company. While this Court, in Brent School,
Inc. vs. Zamora,[5]
has upheld the legality of a fixed-term employment, it has done so,
however,
with a stern admonition that where from the circumstances it is
apparent
that the period has been imposed to preclude the acquisition of
tenurial
security by the employee, then it should be struck down as being
contrary
to law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy. The
pernicious practice of having employees, workers and laborers, engaged
for a fixed period of few months, short of the normal six-month
probationary
period of employment, and, thereafter, to be hired on a day-to-day
basis,
mocks the law. Any obvious circumvention of the law cannot be
countenanced.
The fact that respondent workers have agreed to be employed on such
basis
and to forego the protection given to them on their security of tenure,
demonstrate nothing more than the serious problem of impoverishment of
so many of our people and the resulting unevenness between labor and
capital.
A contract of employment is impressed with public interest. The
provisions
of applicable statutes are deemed written into the contract, and "the
parties
are not at liberty to insulate themselves and their relationships from
the impact of labor laws and regulations by simply contracting with
each
other."[6]
With respect to the
"Release, Waiver and Quitclaim" executed by thirty-six (36) of the
original
complainants, namely, Rommel Abad, Armando Amor, Bobby Austero, Felix
Avenido,
Amado Badasan, Edmundo Bayos, Eduardo Bella, Jr., Mariano
Cañete,
Carmelo Cea, Ernie Chavez, Randy Dechaves, Frederick De Guzman, Renato
De Ocampo, Ademar Estuita, Leonilo Galapin, Raymund Gaudicos, Retchel
Hautea,
Larry Javier, Nelson Logrinio, Alberto Magtibay, Frederick Magallano,
Rogelio
Malinis, Rodolfo Melgar, Silverio Mindajao, Leonardo Mondina, Ruben
Navales,
Rey Pangilinan, Christopher Peralta, Jimmy Reyes, Herminio Roflo,
Michael
Rubia, Noel Rubia, Roberto Tumomba, Oliver Villaflor, and Joselito
Villanueva,
this Court finds the execution of the same to be in order. During
the pendency of the appeal with the Court of Appeals, these thirty-six
(36) complainants individually executed voluntarily a release, waiver
and
quitclaim and received from petitioner company the amount of fifteen
thousand
(P15,000.00) pesos each. The amount accords with the disposition
of the case by the voluntary arbitrator thusly:chanrobles virtual law library
"WHEREFORE,
above premises considered, the herein complaint is hereby DISMISSED for
lack of merit.
"However, we
cannot
completely negate the fact that complainants did and do actually render
services to the Company. It is with this in mind and considering
the difficulty the complainants may face in looking for another job in
case they are no longer re-engaged that we direct the company to pay
complainants
Fifteen Thousand Pesos each (P15,000.00) as financial assistance.
It is however understood that the financial assistance previously
extended
by the Company to some of the complainants shall be deducted from the
financial
assistance herein awarded."[7]chanrobles virtual law library
The receipt of the
amount
awarded by the voluntary arbitrator, as well as the execution of a
release,
waiver and quitclaim, is, in effect, an acceptance of said
decision.
There is nothing on record which could indicate that the execution
thereof
by thirty-six (36) of the respondent workers has been attended by fraud
or deceit. While quitclaims executed by employees are commonly
frowned
upon as being contrary to public policy and are ineffective to bar
claims
for the full measure of their legal rights, there are, however,
legitimate
waivers that represent a voluntary and reasonable settlement of
laborers’
claims which should be so respected by the Court as the law between the
parties.[8]
Where the person making the waiver has done so voluntarily, with a full
understanding thereof, and the consideration for the quitclaim is
credible
and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as being a valid and
binding undertaking. "Dire necessity" is not an acceptable ground
for annulling the release, when it is not shown that the employee has
been
forced to execute it.[9]
WHEREFORE, the questioned
decision of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 47872 is hereby
AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION in that the "Release, Waiver and Quitclaim" executed
by the thirty-six (36) individual respondents are hereby declared VALID
and LEGAL.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 69.
[2]
Rollo, p. 72.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
See De Leon vs. NLRC, 176 SCRA 615.
[4]
Millanes vs. NLRC, 328 SCRA 79.
[5]
181 SCRA 702.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Bernardo vs. NLRC, 310 SCRA 186.
[7]
Rollo, pp. 37-38.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
Alcosero vs. NLRC, 288 SCRA 129.
[9]
Sicangco vs. NLRC, 235 SCRA 96. |