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 latters 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 contractors obligation was merely to supply labor. In addition, taking into account
nature and the complexity of cocas 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 companys 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
companys 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 companys 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.