GR 148492; (May, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148492 ; May 9, 2003
BUENAVENTURA C. MAGSALIN & COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WORKING MEN (N.O.W.M.), ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. engaged the services of respondent workers initially for a five-month period and subsequently on a day-to-day basis as “sales route helpers.” Their tasks involved loading and unloading softdrink products onto delivery trucks. The workers would wait each morning outside the company’s sales office to be hired for the day. After seeking regularization and being refused, the workers filed complaints for regularization and, later, illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice. The Voluntary Arbitrator dismissed the complaint, ruling the workers were not regular employees. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, declaring the respondents as regular employees and their dismissal illegal, ordering reinstatement with full backwages.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent workers, performing tasks as sales route helpers, are regular employees of Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. under Article 280 of the Labor Code.
RULING
Yes, the respondents are regular employees. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling, applying the statutory test under Article 280 of the Labor Code. An employment is deemed regular where the employee performs activities “usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.” The Court emphasized that the determinative standard is the nature of the employee’s activity and its relation to the employer’s usual business. The task of loading and unloading softdrink products is clearly necessary and directly related to the business of a softdrink manufacturer and distributor like Coca-Cola. The repeated and prolonged hiring of the respondents for this essential function, regardless of the “day-to-day” contractual label imposed by the company, solidified their status as regular employees. The Court upheld the order for reinstatement with full backwages. However, the decision was modified regarding thirty-six (36) individual respondents who, during the appeal, had voluntarily executed release, waiver, and quitclaim documents and received financial assistance from the company. The Court found these waivers valid, having been executed voluntarily for credible consideration without any showing of fraud or deceit, and thus barred their claims.