Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Cruz

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 239639 & 239642-43. August 6, 2018.]

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC. [NOW COCA-COLA FEMSA PHILIPPINES, INC.] AND BILL SCHULTZ, petitioners,vs. JOSE BERSABAL CRUZ, ROBERTO LEVANTINO PADUA, NOEL CAYOBIT DE PAZ, ENGELBERT SERAPION ALBERTO, PIP ALVAREZ PRESBETERO, ET AL., complainants.

[G.R. No. 240114. August 6, 2018.]

JOSE BERSABAL CRUZ, ROBERTO LEVANTINO PADUA, NOEL CAYOBIT DE PAZ, ENGELBERT SERAPION ALBERTO, PIP ALVAREZ PRESBETERO, ET AL., complainants,vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC./BILL SCHULTZ; ROMAC SERVICES AND TRADING CO., INC., respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 August 2018which reads as follows: CTIEac

"G.R. Nos. 239639 & 239642-43 (Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. [now Coca-Cola FEMSA Philippines, Inc.] and Bill Schultz v. Jose Bersabal Cruz, Roberto Levantino Padua, Noel Cayobit De Paz, Engelbert Serapion Alberto, Pip Alvarez Presbetero, et al.)

G.R. No. 240114 (Jose Bersabal Cruz, Roberto Levantino Padua, Noel Cayobit De Paz, Engelbert Serapion Alberto, Pip Alvarez Presbetero, et al. v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc./Bill Schultz; Romac Services and Trading Co., Inc.)

After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petitions and AFFIRM the January 22, 2018 Decision 1 and May 24, 2018 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 139263, 139710, and 146421 for failure of petitioners Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (now Coca-Cola FEMSA Philippines, Inc.) (CCBPI) and Bill Schultz in G.R. Nos. 239639 & 239642-43, and complainants Jose Bersabal Cruz, Roberto Levantino Padua, Noel Cayobit De Paz, Engelbert Serapion Alberto, Pip Alvarez Presbetero, et al. (complainants) in G.R. No. 240114, to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in declaring that complainants were regular employees of CCBPI; and that the computation of complainants' reinstatement backwages shall cover only the period from April 1, 2015 to August 3, 2015, when complainants did not report for work despite CCBPI's written directive.

As the CA correctly ruled, CCBPI, which owns 992 shares or 99% of the subscribed capital stock of The Redsystems Company, Inc. (TRCI), with which it entered into a Service Level Agreement, is the real employer of complainants and, therefore, jointly and severally liable with the latter pursuant to Article 106 of the Labor Code. 3

The CA also correctly ruled that Romac Services and Trading Co., Inc., with which TRCI executed a separate Services Agreement, is a labor-only contractor of CCBPI because: (a) it lacked adequate investment in the form of tools, equipment, and machinery necessary to perform its obligations to deliver CCBPI's products to its customers pursuant to the Service Agreement; and (b) complainants' work as route drivers and route helpers are necessary and desirable to the operations of CCBPI, the outsourcing of which was not justified by the exigencies of its business. As the Court declared in Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Agito4 and Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Dela Cruz, 5 the distribution and sale of Coca-Cola products are indispensable to CCBPI's principal business of manufacturing and distribution of non-alcoholic beverages. 6 SCaITA

Finally, the CA correctly declared complainants as having been actually and physically reinstated by CCBPI on August 3, 2015. Since they failed to report for work despite CCBPI's written directive, the computation of the reinstatement backwages must cover only the period from April 1, 2015 — when they were illegally dismissed — to August 3, 2015 — when they were deemed to have severed their services with CCBPI for failure to report for work despite the written directive.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo (G.R. No. 240114), Vol. IV, pp. 1876-1903. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Edwin D. Sorongon concurring.

2.Id. at 1924-1931.

3. ART. 106. Contractor or subcontractor. Whenever an employer enters into a contract with another person for the performance of the former's work, the employees of the contractor and of the latter's subcontractor, if any, shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of this Code.

   In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the wages of his employees in accordance with this Code, the employer shall be jointly and severally liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees to the extent of the work performed under the contract, in the same manner and extent that he is liable to employees directly employed by him.

   The Secretary of Labor and Employment may, by appropriate regulations, restrict or prohibit the contracting-out of labor to protect the rights of workers established under this Code. In so prohibiting or restricting, he may make appropriate distinctions between labor-only contracting and job contracting as well as differentiations within these types of contracting and determine who among the parties involved shall be considered the employer for purposes of this Code, to prevent any violation or circumvention of any provision of this Code.

   There is "labor-only" contracting where the person supplying workers to an employer does not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, among others, and the workers recruited and placed by such person are performing activities which are directly related to the principal business of such employer. In such cases, the person or intermediary shall be considered merely as an agent of the employer who shall be responsible to the workers in the same manner and extent as if the latter were directly employed by him.

4. 598 Phil. 909, 926 (2009).

5. 622 Phil. 886, 907 (2009). Citing Magsalin v. National Organization of Workingmen, the Court declared that "[w]hile the respondents were not direct parties to this ruling, [Coca-Cola] was the party involved and Magsalin described in a very significant way the manufacture of softdrinks and the company's sales and distribution activities in relation with one another. Following the lead we gave in Magsalin, x x x the contracted personnel who served as route helpers were really engaged in functions directly related to the overall business of [Coca-Cola, thus] the contracted personnel were under the company's 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 softdrinks business."

6. See also Quintanar v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., 788 Phil. 385, 405 (2016); citation omitted; Bantolino v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., 451 Phil. 839 (2003); Pacquing v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., 567 Phil. 323, 339-340 (2008); and Basan v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., 735 Phil. 74, 85-86 (2015).