Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 94 views

    Quintanar V Coca Cola

    Uploaded by

    Soc
    This case involved former employees of Coca-Cola who were transferred to a manpower agency. The employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola denied the employer-employee relationship, claiming the manpower agency was their independent contractor. However, the court ruled the employees were regular employees of Coca-Cola, not the agency, because Coca-Cola exercised control over the employees, there was no evidence the agency paid the employees or was capitalized, and the employees performed functions directly related to Coca-Cola's business. The court found Coca-Cola illegally dismissed the employees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Quintanar V Coca Cola

    Uploaded by

    Soc
    94 views2 pages
    This case involved former employees of Coca-Cola who were transferred to a manpower agency. The employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola denied the employer-employee relationship, claiming the manpower agency was their independent contractor. However, the court ruled the employees were regular employees of Coca-Cola, not the agency, because Coca-Cola exercised control over the employees, there was no evidence the agency paid the employees or was capitalized, and the employees performed functions directly related to Coca-Cola's business. The court found Coca-Cola illegally dismissed the employees.

    Original Description:

    labor digest

    Original Title

    Quintanar v Coca Cola

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved former employees of Coca-Cola who were transferred to a manpower agency. The employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola denied the employer-employee relationship, claiming the manpower agency was their independent contractor. However, the court ruled the employees were regular employees of Coca-Cola, not the agency, because Coca-Cola exercised control over the employees, there was no evidence the agency paid the employees or was capitalized, and the employees performed functions directly related to Coca-Cola's business. The court found Coca-Cola illegally dismissed the employees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    94 views2 pages

    Quintanar V Coca Cola

    Uploaded by

    Soc
    This case involved former employees of Coca-Cola who were transferred to a manpower agency. The employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola denied the employer-employee relationship, claiming the manpower agency was their independent contractor. However, the court ruled the employees were regular employees of Coca-Cola, not the agency, because Coca-Cola exercised control over the employees, there was no evidence the agency paid the employees or was capitalized, and the employees performed functions directly related to Coca-Cola's business. The court found Coca-Cola illegally dismissed the employees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Quintanar v.

    Coca-Cola

    Facts:
     The petitioners (Emmanuel Quintanar et al.) were former employees directly hired by Coca-Cola
    and were assigned as regular Route Helpers.
     They were transferred successively as agency workers to manpower agencies, and the latest
    being respondent Interserve Management and Manpower Resources, Inc.
     DOLE conducted an inspection of Coca-Cola and they were determined to be regular employees.
    Coca-Cola was held liable to pay them the underpayment of their 13th month pay, emergency
    COLA and other claims.
     When Coca-Cola learned of the filing of the claims, they were dismissed on various dates.
     Quintanar et al. filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, damages and attorney’s fees.

     Coca-Cola denied the employer-employee relationship and pointed to Interserve with which it
    had a service agreement as petitioners’ employer. They claimed that Interserve was Coca-Cola’s
    independent service contractor.
     Coca-Cola’s allegations:
    o Interserve was free from the control and direction of Coca-Cola in all matters connected
    with the performance of the work, except as to the results.
    o Interserve was highly capitalized.
    o All elements of employer-employee relationship existed between Interserve and the
    petitioners.
     Interserve filed its position paper pertaining only to petitioners Quintanar and Cabili and ignored
    the other 28 petitioners.
    o Interserve’s position: petitioners were mere contractual workers whose employment
    depends on the service contracts with the clients.
     LA ruled in favour of Quintanar et al.
    o Documentary evidence confirmed that petitioners had been working for Coca-Cola for
    some time.
    o It was highly inconceivable for them who were already enjoying a stable job at a multi-
    national company, to leave and become mere agency workers.
     NLRC affirmed the LA.
     CA reversed.
    o Petitioners were employees of Interserve, not Coca-Cola.
    o It was Interserve who exercised the power of selection and engagement over the
    petitioners considering that they applied for their jobs and went through Interserve’s
    pre-employment processes.

    Issue:
    WoN the petitioners were employees of Coca-Cola
     YES
    A. The Court struck down Coca-Cola’s defense in previous cases. It ruled that route-helpers were
    Coca-Cola’s employees. In this case, Coca-Cola has not shown any strong and compelling reason
    to convince the Court that the doctrine of stare decisis should not be applied.
     Interserve did not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment,
    machineries, and work premises.
     DOLE issued a certification that Interserve was an independent job contractor.
    o According to its Articles of Incorporation, the principal business of Interserve is to
    provide janitorial and allied services. The delivery and distribution of Coca-Cola
    products, the work for which respondents were employed and assigned to petitioner,
    were in no way allied to janitorial services.
     Coca-Cola exercised the power of control over the petitioners

    B. On the service agreement, payment of wages


     Petitioners have been rendering their services as route helpers even before Interserve entered
    into a service agreement with Coca-Cola in 1998.
     No evidence was shown to prove that Interserve was the one which paid petitioners’ salaries.
     Records show that they were being compensated by Coca-Cola.

    C. Interserve was engaged in the practice of labor-only contracting


     Elements (Agito case) – exists when any of the two elements is present
    1.) Performing activities directly related to the principal business of the employer
    2.) Lack of substantial capital or investment
     Petitioners were performing activities which were directly related to the principal business
    Coca-Cola.
     Coca-Cola failed to rebut the allegation that petitioners were transferred from being its
    employees to become employees of the agencies, which were labor-only contractors.

    D. No evidence that petitioners voluntarily resigned from their employment.


     It was highly inconceivable for the petitioners, who were already enjoying a stable job at a multi-
    national company, to leave and become mere agency workers.

    You might also like