Basan v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: 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 that they were dismissed without just cause and prior written notice. The petitioners were hired as route helpers, with hiring dates ranging from October 1988 to July 1996, and dismissal dates from April 1996 to February 1997. Respondent countered that the petitioners were hired as temporary route helpers for a fixed period to cover for absent regular employees during anticipated high-volume work periods, and thus their claims had no basis. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding them to be regular employees illegally dismissed and ordering reinstatement with backwages and other benefits. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision, rejecting the respondent's contention of fixed-term or project employment and emphasizing the lack of proof for such arrangements. The respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The CA consolidated two petitions, reversed the NLRC and Labor Arbiter's rulings, and declared the petitioners as fixed-term employees not entitled to reinstatement and backwages. The CA later denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the CA's decision and resolution. They argue that the CA erred in ruling that they were not regular employees, asserting that they continuously performed duties necessary and desirable to the respondent's business. They also contend that the NLRC's resolutions had become final and executory, and that the CA lacked jurisdiction to alter the judgment. Petitioners maintain they are regular employees entitled to security of tenure and that the respondent failed to provide contracts evidencing any fixed-term employment. The respondent argued that the petition should be denied due to a defective verification and certification of non-forum shopping, and reiterated that the petitioners were fixed-term employees hired intermittently for periods less than a year.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners, as route helpers, were regular employees entitled to security of tenure. Whether the verification and certification of non-forum shopping signed by only one petitioner substantially complied with the requirements. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that the petitioners were not regular employees, and whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in its challenged decisions. What are the entitlements of the petitioners, considering the finding of illegal dismissal.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are set aside, and the Resolutions of the NLRC affirming the Labor Arbiter's Decision are reinstated with modification. Respondent is ordered to pay petitioners backwages, allowances, other benefits, attorney's fees, and interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the petitioners were regular employees: The Court reiterated its ruling in Magsalin v. National Organization of Working Men and Pacquing, et. al. v. Coca-Cola Philippines, Inc., holding that route helpers performing duties necessary and desirable in the usual business or trade of a softdrink manufacturer are considered regular employees. The Court emphasized that the nature of the work performed must be viewed from the perspective of the business in its entirety, not a confined scope. The repeated rehiring and continuing need for their services clearly attest to their necessity and desirability in the regular conduct of business. The Court found that the respondent failed to present proof that petitioners freely entered into fixed-term agreements, and the explanation of destroyed contracts was insufficient, giving rise to a presumption that their presentation would be prejudicial to the respondent's cause. The Court concluded that the respondent's practice of hiring and rehiring petitioners for periods short of the legal probationary period evidenced an intent to thwart their security of tenure, especially given the unequal bargaining power between ordinary workers and employers. On the issue of procedural lapses regarding verification and certification of non-forum shopping: The Court held that the signature of only one petitioner, Romeo Basan, on the verification and certification of non-forum shopping constituted substantial compliance. The Court cited jurisprudence stating that the rule on verification is substantially complied with when one with ample knowledge signs it, and when matters alleged are made in good faith. Similarly, when petitioners share a common interest and cause of action, the signature of one in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the requirement. The Court emphasized that in labor cases, technical rules of procedure may be relaxed to serve the demand of justice, and overlooking such lapses is more in accord with substantial justice. On the issue of the Court of Appeals' grave abuse of discretion and reversible error: The Court found that the CA erred in reversing the NLRC and Labor Arbiter's findings. The CA's reliance on Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora was misplaced because the respondent failed to satisfy the criteria for valid fixed-term employment. Specifically, the respondent did not present proof that the fixed period was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon without vitiated consent, nor that the parties dealt on more or less equal terms. The Court noted that the respondent's failure to present employment contracts, despite opportunities, and its reliance on a fire as an excuse, created a presumption against its claim. Therefore, the CA's conclusion that petitioners were fixed-term employees was not supported by evidence, constituting reversible error and grave abuse of discretion. On the entitlement to reinstatement and backwages: Based on the finding that petitioners were regular employees illegally dismissed, they are entitled to reinstatement and full backwages from the time their salaries were withheld until actual reinstatement, along with other monetary awards and attorney's fees. The Court modified the award by considering petitioners' reinstatement in 1999 and Falguera's receipt of separation pay, remanding the case for proper computation of awards, deducting amounts already received.
Main Doctrine
Route helpers performing duties necessary and desirable in the usual business or trade of a softdrink manufacturer are considered regular employees entitled to security of tenure, and fixed-term employment contracts are only valid if knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon without vitiated consent and on equal terms, with the burden of proof on the employer to show such conditions.