G.R. No. 174365 -66 February 4, 2015
ROMEO BASAN, DANILO DIZON, JAIME L. TUMABIAO, JR., ROBERTO DELA RAMA, JR., RICKY S. NICOLAS, CRISPULO D. DONOR, GALO FALGUERA, and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Petitioners, vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Romeo Basan, Danilo Dizon, Jaime L. Tumabiao, Jr., Roberto Dela Rama, Jr., Ricky S. Nicolas, Crispulo D. Donor, and Galo Falguera filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims against respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines. They alleged they were dismissed without just cause and prior written notice. Petitioners provided dates of hiring ranging from 1988 to 1996 and dismissals in 1996 and 1997. Respondent countered that petitioners were hired as temporary route helpers for fixed periods to substitute for absent regular helpers during periods of high work volume. The Labor Arbiter ruled for petitioners, finding them to be regular employees performing necessary and desirable work for more than the period required for regularization, and ordered reinstatement with backwages and benefits. The NLRC affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals reversed, consolidating two certiorari petitions from respondent, and held petitioners were fixed-term employees, not regular employees, and thus not entitled to reinstatement and backwages. Petitioners sought reconsideration, arguing procedural defects in respondent’s appeal and reiterating their regular employee status, which the CA denied.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners are regular employees or fixed-term employees of respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners are regular employees. The Court held that the repeated and successive rehiring of petitioners to perform activities necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer, despite being for fixed periods, constitutes regular employment under Article 280 of the Labor Code. The nature of their work as route helpers was directly related to respondent’s business of manufacturing and distributing soft drinks. The Court emphasized that where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking but the employee has been continuously rehired due to the necessity and desirability of their services, the employee is deemed regular. Respondent failed to prove that petitioners were hired for a specific project with a predetermined period. The Court also noted that the failure to present employment contracts due to a fire did not relieve respondent of its burden to prove the fixed-term nature of the employment. The procedural issue regarding the verification and certification of non-forum shopping signed by only one petitioner was deemed substantially complied with, as all petitioners shared a common interest and cause of action. The CA decision was reversed, and the NLRC resolutions affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision were reinstated.