GR NO. 148492 GR NO.

148492

FACTS:
- Coca Cola Bottlers Phils engaged the
services of complainants as sales route
helpers for a limited period of five
months and later paid on day to day
basis. Accordingly, they were hired to
substitute the regular sales route helpers
in case of unavailability and unexpected
shortage of manpower.
- The complainants seek to extend to them
regular appointments but was refused.
- Hence this complaint
COMPLAINT FOR: Regularization, notice of
strike, illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice
ISSUE: 1.) WON the nature of work of the
complainants are necessary and desirable in the
usual business of the company to qualify them to
be regular employees?
Of the business of the company.
- If it is true that complainants work is
not necessary in the business
operation then, the company would
not have maintained regular sales
route helpers. the nature of the
worked performed must be viewed
from a perspective of the business
or trade in its entirety and not on a
confined scope.
- Likewise, 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 the
relation to the usual business or trade
of the employee.

LABOR ARTIBER: However, the complaint was dismissed

- Dismissed the complaint
- Complainants are not regular employees
of coca cola
NLRC : Reversed LA’s decision. Complainants
are regular employees of the company
SC DECISION:
because during the pendency of the
appeal with the Court of Appeals, 36
complainants individually executed
VOLUNTARILY a release, waiver and
quitclaim and received from the company
the amount of fifteen thousand (15,000)
pesos each. The Supreme Court finds the
execution of the waiver and quitclaim to
be proper, hence, must be respected.

- The company argued that its usual

business or trade is softdrink
manufacturing and that the work assigned
to the complainants as sales route
helpers involves merely portproduction
activities which is not necessary in the
manufacture of its products.
- Such argument was not sustained by the
Supreme Court because the repeated
rehiring of the complainants and the
continuing need for their services clearly
attest to the necessity or desirability of
their services in the regular conduct