View full case

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. v. ALAN M. AGITO

FACTS:

Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (petitioner) is a domestic corporation engaged in manufacturing, bottling, and distributing soft drink beverages. Respondents Alan M. Agito, Regolo S. Oca III, Ernesto G. Alariao, Jr., Alfonso Paa, Jr., Dempster P. Ong, Urriquia T. Arvin, Gil H. Francisco, and Edwin M. Golez filed complaints against petitioner and other entities for reinstatement with backwages, regularization, nonpayment of 13th-month pay, and damages. The complaints alleged that respondents were salesmen assigned at petitioner's Lagro Sales Office and that their employment was terminated without just cause and due process.

Petitioner contended that respondents were employees of Interserve Management & Manpower Resources, Inc. (Interserve), and not of petitioner. Petitioner presented evidence to prove that Interserve was an independent contractor, including its Articles of Incorporation, Certificate of Registration with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Income Tax Return with Audited Financial Statements, and Certificate of Registration as an independent job contractor issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). The Labor Arbiter found that respondents were employees of Interserve and not of petitioner, and dismissed the complaints against petitioner. However, the Labor Arbiter ordered Interserve to pay respondents their pro-rated 13th month benefits.

The respondents argued that their work was indispensable to Coca-Cola's principal business, and that Coca-Cola exercised control over them as if they were its employees. They presented evidence such as the Delivery Agreement between Coca-Cola and TRMD Incorporated, copies of memos addressed to other workers pretending to be employees of contractors, and various reports and schedules prepared by Coca-Cola to support their claims.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, ruling that there was no employer-employee relationship between Coca-Cola and respondents. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision, finding that Interserve was an independent contractor and that respondents failed to prove that Coca-Cola exercised control over them.

The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC's decision, holding that Interserve was a labor-only contractor with insufficient capital and investments. The court also found that Coca-Cola had effective control over respondents' work and that their tasks were necessary to Coca-Cola's main business. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the NLRC for further proceedings.

Unsatisfied with the decision, Coca-Cola filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, raising issues regarding the classification of Interserve as a labor-only contractor and the nature of respondents' work.

This case pertains to the interpretation of the right to control in determining employer-employee relationships in relation to subcontracting or job contracting arrangements. The referred provision under consideration is found in the implementing rules and regulations of the Labor Code.

The facts involve a company engaged in the business of subcontracting or job contracting. The petitioner, as the contractor, undertook various jobs, works, or services for its principal.

The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) conducted an inspection and found that the individuals engaged as subcontractors were actually the petitioner's employees. DOLE argued that the petitioner had the power to control and supervise their work, signifying an employer-employee relationship.

Consequently, DOLE issued a compliance order directing the petitioner to regularize the individuals, pay them the appropriate wages, and provide other benefits. The petitioner appealed the order to the Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE), which subsequently dismissed the appeal.

The petitioner sought relief by filing a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals challenging the SOLE's ruling. The appellate court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, prompting the petitioner to elevate the case to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether labor-only contracting exists in the case.

  2. Whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the principal employer and the contractor's employees.

  3. Whether or not Interserve had substantial capitalization or investment to be considered an independent job contractor.

  4. Whether Interserve has the necessary capital and investment to qualify as an independent job contractor.

  5. Whether Interserve exercised control over the performance of work of the respondents.

  6. Whether Interserve is an independent contractor or a labor-only contractor.

  7. Whether the respondents were illegally dismissed by petitioner.

  8. Whether or not the respondents were illegally dismissed.

RULING:

  1. Labor-only contracting exists in the case. Both indicators of labor-only contracting are present - the contractor does not have substantial capital or investment directly related to the job being performed, and the employees recruited by the contractor are performing activities directly related to the principal business of the employer.

  2. An employer-employee relationship exists between the principal employer and the contractor's employees. The law establishes an employer-employee relationship upon a finding that the contractor is engaged in labor-only contracting. The activities being performed by the employees are directly related to the principal business of the employer.

  3. No, Interserve did not have substantial capitalization or investment to be considered an independent job contractor. The Court found that although Interserve had an authorized capital stock of P2,000,000.00, only P625,000.00 was paid up as of a certain date. The Contract between petitioner and Interserve did not specify the work or project to be performed, making it impossible to determine if Interserve had substantial capital or investment for the job. The Court also noted that Interserve's primary purpose, as stated in its Articles of Incorporation, was to provide janitorial and allied services, which differed from the services its employees were hired for by petitioner. The Court cited previous cases where substantial capitalization or investment alone was not enough to establish independent contractor status, and factors such as carrying on an independent business, nature of work, control and supervision, and terms of payment were considered.

  4. The Court ruled that Interserve failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that it had sufficient capital and investment to engage in job contracting. Therefore, Interserve falls under the definition of a "labor-only" contractor.

  5. The Court found that Interserve lacked control over the respondents' work, as evidenced by the contract between Interserve and petitioner. This makes Interserve a labor-only contractor under the Rules Implementing Articles 106-109 of the Labor Code.

  6. The Court found that Interserve is a labor-only contractor and not an independent contractor. This was based on several factors, including the control exerted by petitioner over the conduct of respondents, the lack of evidence showing the extent of supervision exercised by Interserve, the power of petitioner to request the replacement of Interserve's personnel, and the guarantee of daily attendance provided by Interserve. These factors indicated that Interserve was merely a recruiting and manpower agency providing workers directly related to petitioner's business.

  7. The Court ruled that the respondents were illegally dismissed by petitioner. As regular employees of petitioner, they are entitled to the protection of labor laws and can only be dismissed for just or authorized causes. Petitioner failed to prove the existence of any valid cause for dismissal, and there was a lack of procedural due process, as respondents were not given notice and an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, petitioner is ordered to reinstate the respondents with full backwages and other benefits.

  8. The court rules that the respondents were unlawfully dismissed. The petitioner is ordered to reinstate them without loss of seniority rights and to pay them full back wages computed from the time their compensation was withheld until their actual reinstatement.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Labor-only contracting is prohibited by law, as it is an arrangement intended to circumvent labor law provisions.

  • If labor-only contracting is found to exist, an employer-employee relationship is deemed to exist between the principal employer and the contractor's employees.

  • In cases of labor-only contracting, the principal employer becomes solidarily liable with the contractor for all rightful claims of the employees.

  • Substantial capital or investment refers to capital stocks, subscribed capitalization, tools, equipment, implements, machineries, and work premises actually and directly used by the contractor in performing the contracted job.

  • The "right to control" refers to the authority of the principal employer to determine not only the end to be achieved but also the manner and means to be used in reaching that end.

  • Substantial capitalization or investment alone is not enough to establish independent contractor status.

  • Factors such as carrying on an independent business, nature of work, skill required, term and duration of relationship, control and supervision, and terms of payment may be considered in determining independent contractor status.

  • Identification and specification of the work or project to be performed by the contractor is important in determining if there is substantial capital or investment for the job.

  • The contractor, not the employee, has the burden of proof to show that it has substantial capital, investment, and tools to engage in job contracting.

  • To establish the status of an independent job contractor, evidence must be presented to show the sufficiency of vehicles and equipment in carrying out the service contract.

  • A contractor is considered a labor-only contractor if it does not have substantial capital or investment and if the work performed by its employees is directly related to the principal business of the client.

  • Lack of control over the performance of work by the contractor is a factor in determining whether it falls under the definition of a labor-only contractor.

  • Prohibition on labor-only contracting - The case highlights the distinction between an independent contractor and a labor-only contractor. Labor-only contracting is prohibited under the Labor Code, as it evades the workers' rights and benefits.

  • Control test - The control exerted by the principal over the performance of work is a crucial factor in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

  • Procedural due process - In cases of dismissal, employees are entitled to procedural due process, which includes notice and hearing. Failure to comply with these requirements renders the dismissal illegal.

  • Illegal Dismissal - The court recognizes that the respondents were illegally dismissed, entitling them to reinstatement and payment of back wages.

  • Seniority Rights - The court emphasizes that the respondents should be reinstated without loss of seniority rights, ensuring that they are not disadvantaged by their unlawful dismissal.