Pacquing v. Coca-cola Phil., Inc.

, January 31, 2008

CASE DIGEST:

FACTS:
Eddie Pacquing, Roderick Centeno, Juanito M. Guerra, Claro Dupilad, Jr., Louie Centeno, David
Reblora, Raymundo Andrade (petitioners) were sales route helpers or cargadores-pahinantes of Coca-
Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., (respondent). They were part of a complement of three personnel
comprised of a driver, a salesman and a regular route helper, for every delivery truck. They worked
exclusively at respondent's plants, sales offices, and company premises.

In 1996, petitioners filed a complaint against respondent for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal
with claims for regularization, recovery of benefits under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA),
moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. They alleged that they should be declared regular
employees of respondent since the nature of their work as cargadores-pahinantes was necessary or
desirable to respondent's usual business and was directly related to respondent's business and trade.

The respondent denied liability to petitioners and countered that petitioners were temporary workers
who were engaged for a five-month period to act as substitutes for an absent regular employee.
In 2000, Labor Arbiter Adolfo C. Babiano dismissed the complaint ruling that the petitioners were
temporary workers hired through an independent contractor and acted as substitutes for the company's
regular work force; that petitioner cannot be considered regular employees because, as cargadores-
pahinantes, their work was not necessary or desirable in respondent's business - the manufacture of
softdrinks.

The petitioners filed a Memorandum of Appeal with the NLRC but was dismissed and the decision of the
Labor Arbiter was affirmed. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration1 but it was denied by the
NLRC. Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA. The CA rendered a decision dismissing the
petition for petitioner's failure to comply with the verification requirement in the petition and the appeal
memorandum. It held that the failure of all the petitioners to affix their signatures in the verification and
certification against non-forum shopping rendered the petition dismissable, and affirmed the NLRC's
finding that petitioners' functions were not related to respondent's main business.

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied by the CA. Petitioners then filed the
present petition.

ISSUE(S):
WON the petitioners should be declared regular employees of coca-cola and thus entitled to be reinstated
with backwages from the date of their dismissal up to the date of their actual reinstatement, damages and
attorney's fees.

RULING:
YES.

Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., is one of the leading and largest manufacturers of softdrinks in the
country. The workers have long been in the service of the said company. They, when hired, would go
with route salesmen on board delivery trucks and undertake the laborious task of loading and
unloading softdrink products of the company to its various delivery points.
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.

The argument that the company’s usual business or trade is softdrink manufacturing and that the work
assigned to respondent workers as sales route helpers so involves merely "post production activities,"
one which is not indispensable in the manufacture of its products, scarcely can be persuasive. If, as so
argued by the 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 and not on a confined
scope.

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. It also found that each of respondents to have worked for at least one year with petitioner
company.

Being regular employees of respondent, petitioners are entitled to security of tenure, as provided in
Article 279 of the Labor Code, and may only be terminated from employment due to just or authorized
causes. Because respondent failed to show such cause,49 the petitioners are deemed illegally dismissed
and therefore entitled to back wages and reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other
privileges.

On the claim for moral and exemplary damages, there is no basis to award the same. Moral and
exemplary damages are recoverable only where the dismissal of an employee was attended by bad faith or
fraud, or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs
or public policy.