Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
COCA-COLA
G.R. No. 210565
28 JUNE 2016
EMMANUEL D. QUINTANAR, et. al., vs COCA-COLA BOTTLERS, PHILIPPINES, INC.,
petitioner respondent
Petition for review on certiorari of CA decision & resolution
Justice Mendoza
Petitioners were directly-hired employees of respondent as Route Helpers. After working for quite some time,
FACTS:
(1) Whether or not an ER-EE relationship exists between the petitioners and respondent.
(2) Whether the manpower agencies are labor-only contractors.
YES.
HELD:
YES.
CA decision set aside.
The Court held that petitioners still enjoyed an ER-EE relationship with respondent since becoming employees of
RATIO:
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 company.
Furthermore, it has already been established in jurisprudence that the manpower services were a labor-only
contractor since the work performed by the supplied employees were indispensable to the principal business
of respondent. In fact, the manpower agencies were found to not have substantial capital or investment or tool
to engage in job contracting.
Finally, the Court determined the existence 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.