April 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > April 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 157966 : April 23, 2008] EDDIE P. PACQUING, RODERICK CENTENO, JUANITO M, GUERRA, JOVITO C. ESTOLONIO, CLARO DUPILAD, JR., LOUIE CENTENO, DAVID REBLORA AND RAYMUNDO ANDRADE V. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. :
[G.R. No. 157966 : April 23, 2008]
EDDIE P. PACQUING, RODERICK CENTENO, JUANITO M, GUERRA, JOVITO C. ESTOLONIO, CLARO DUPILAD, JR., LOUIE CENTENO, DAVID REBLORA AND RAYMUNDO ANDRADE V. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 23 April 2008:
G.R. No. 157966 - (Eddie P. Pacquing, Roderick Centeno, Juanito M, Guerra, Jovito C. Estolonio, Claro Dupilad, Jr., Louie Centeno, David Reblora and Raymundo Andrade v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.)
This resolves respondent's Motion for Reconsideration.
On January 31, 2008, the Court rendered a Decision[1] in the above-entitled case granting the petition for review and setting aside the Decision dated November 25, 2002 and Resolution dated April 15, 2003 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 68756. The Court declared that petitioners are regular employees of respondent and ordered the latter to reinstate petitioners to their former positions with full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time of their actual termination up to the time of their actual reinstatement.
In its Motion for Reconsideration,[2]respondent contends that the Court erred in applying Mqgsalin, v. National Organization of Working Men[3] because the employees therein were directly hired by respondent unlike the present case where the petitioners were hired by independent contractors; that the Court erred in not applying Ignacio v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc.;[4] that the Court erred in not applying the law applicable at that time, Department Order No. 10.
The motion for reconsideration is without merit.
The test to determine whether employment is regular or not is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. And, if the employee has been performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability of that activity to the business.[5] In Magsalin,[6] the Court held that respondent's sales route helpers are regular employees, having repeatedly performed tasked directly related to respondent's main business. Herein petitioners are similarly situated. They have been performing their job as sales route helpers for more than three years, two have even worked for more than 10 years. Thus, the rule in Magsalin applies.
Respondent's claim that petitioners were hired by independent job contractors deserves scant consideration. Where the employees are tasked to undertake activities usually desirable or necessary in the usual business of the employer, the contractor is considered as a "labor-only" contractor and such employees are considered as regular employees of the employer.[7] Herein petitioners' work, as sales route helpers is directly related to respondent's principal business of manufacturing and distribution of soft drinks.
The law casts on the employer the burden to prove that the contractor has substantial capital, investment, tools, etc. Employees, on the other hand, need not prove that the contractor does not have substantial capital, investment, and tools to engage in job-contracting[8]. Thus, it was not the burden of petitioners to implead the alleged independent contractors. The law cast upon respondent the burden of proof, it having alleged that petitioners were employees of independent contractors. Moreover, respondent was unable to present any proof that its alleged contractors had substantial capital. There was no evidence pertaining to the contractors' capitalization nor investment in tools, equipment or implements actually used in the performance or completion of the job, work, or service that they were contracted to render. Thus, the contractors are "labor-only" contractors since they did not have substantial capital or investment which relates to the service performed and petitioners performed activities which were directly related to respondent's main business. Respondent, the principal employer, is solidarity liable with the labor-only contractors, for all the rightful claims of the employees.[9]
Lastly, Department Order No. 10 does not apply in this case. Said rule, which allows permissible contracting or subcontracting, applies only when the work is not directly related to the main business or operation of the principal. As aforestated, the work of the petitioners is directly related and integral to the main business of respondent.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
RESOLUTION
G.R. No. 157966 - (Eddie P. Pacquing, Roderick Centeno, Juanito M, Guerra, Jovito C. Estolonio, Claro Dupilad, Jr., Louie Centeno, David Reblora and Raymundo Andrade v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.)
This resolves respondent's Motion for Reconsideration.
On January 31, 2008, the Court rendered a Decision[1] in the above-entitled case granting the petition for review and setting aside the Decision dated November 25, 2002 and Resolution dated April 15, 2003 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 68756. The Court declared that petitioners are regular employees of respondent and ordered the latter to reinstate petitioners to their former positions with full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time of their actual termination up to the time of their actual reinstatement.
In its Motion for Reconsideration,[2]respondent contends that the Court erred in applying Mqgsalin, v. National Organization of Working Men[3] because the employees therein were directly hired by respondent unlike the present case where the petitioners were hired by independent contractors; that the Court erred in not applying Ignacio v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc.;[4] that the Court erred in not applying the law applicable at that time, Department Order No. 10.
The motion for reconsideration is without merit.
The test to determine whether employment is regular or not is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. And, if the employee has been performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability of that activity to the business.[5] In Magsalin,[6] the Court held that respondent's sales route helpers are regular employees, having repeatedly performed tasked directly related to respondent's main business. Herein petitioners are similarly situated. They have been performing their job as sales route helpers for more than three years, two have even worked for more than 10 years. Thus, the rule in Magsalin applies.
Respondent's claim that petitioners were hired by independent job contractors deserves scant consideration. Where the employees are tasked to undertake activities usually desirable or necessary in the usual business of the employer, the contractor is considered as a "labor-only" contractor and such employees are considered as regular employees of the employer.[7] Herein petitioners' work, as sales route helpers is directly related to respondent's principal business of manufacturing and distribution of soft drinks.
The law casts on the employer the burden to prove that the contractor has substantial capital, investment, tools, etc. Employees, on the other hand, need not prove that the contractor does not have substantial capital, investment, and tools to engage in job-contracting[8]. Thus, it was not the burden of petitioners to implead the alleged independent contractors. The law cast upon respondent the burden of proof, it having alleged that petitioners were employees of independent contractors. Moreover, respondent was unable to present any proof that its alleged contractors had substantial capital. There was no evidence pertaining to the contractors' capitalization nor investment in tools, equipment or implements actually used in the performance or completion of the job, work, or service that they were contracted to render. Thus, the contractors are "labor-only" contractors since they did not have substantial capital or investment which relates to the service performed and petitioners performed activities which were directly related to respondent's main business. Respondent, the principal employer, is solidarity liable with the labor-only contractors, for all the rightful claims of the employees.[9]
Lastly, Department Order No. 10 does not apply in this case. Said rule, which allows permissible contracting or subcontracting, applies only when the work is not directly related to the main business or operation of the principal. As aforestated, the work of the petitioners is directly related and integral to the main business of respondent.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 519.
[2] Id at 535.
[3] 451 Phil. 254(2003).
[4] 417 Phil. 747(2001).
[5] Integrated Contractor and Plumbing Works, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 152427, August 9, 2005, 466 SCRA 265, 273.
[6] Supra note 3, at 261.
[7] Manila Water Company Inc. v. Pena, G.R. No. 158255, July 8; 2004,434 SCRA 53,61; Guinnux Interiors, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 339 Phil 75,79-80(1997).
[8] 7K Corporation v. National labor Relations Commission, G R. No. 148490, November 22, 2006, 507 SCRA 509, 523; Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils, Inc. v Hingpit, 356 Phil 90, 103 (1998); Guarin v. National labor Relations Commission, G,R. No. 86010, October 3,1989,178 SCRA 267,273
[9] Acevedo v. Advanstar Company, Inc., G.R. No. 157656, November II, 2005,474 SCRA 656, 667; San Miguel Corporation v. Maerc Integrated Service, Inc., 453 Phil. 543: 567 (2003).
