G.R. No. 174365-66 - Basan vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines

On February 18, 1997, 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 Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines.
They alleged dismissal without just cause and without prior written notice as required by law.
Petitioners provided material dates of hiring and dismissal, showing terms ranging mostly between less than a year to several years of service.

The respondent maintained that petitioners were temporary route helpers employed only as substitutes for absent regular route helpers, for fixed and specific periods tied to high volume work.
The Labor Arbiter, on August 21, 1998, ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding them regular employees performing work necessary and desirable to the usual trade or business and hence entitled to security of tenure.
It ordered reinstatement with full backwages, benefits, monetary awards, and attorney’s fees.

The NLRC on January 30, 2003, affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, finding no proof that petitioners were project or seasonal employees, nor probationary employees, as their service exceeded six months.
On September 24, 2003, the NLRC denied the respondent’s motion for reconsideration, upholding its prior ruling.

Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in finding petitioners as regular employees.
The CA consolidated two petitions and, in a Decision dated August 31, 2005, reversed the NLRC and Labor Arbiter’s rulings, declaring petitioners as fixed-term employees whose repeated hiring for varying periods did not automatically confer regular status.
The CA relied on Brent School, Inc. vs. Zamora, upholding fixed-term employment when knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon.
The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on August 24, 2006, finding the issue of the timeliness of appeal irrelevant as the NLRC had decided on the merits and petitioners failed to raise the procedural infirmity earlier.

Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, asserting they were regular employees entitled to security of tenure.
They challenged the CA’s ruling that they were not regular employees.
Respondent countered that the petition must be dismissed due to procedural defects (verification and certification of non-forum shopping signed by only one petitioner).
Respondent maintained petitioners were fixed-term employees, supported by payroll evidence showing intermittent service periods mostly under one year, and contended that no contracts evidencing regular employment were presented due to a fire destroying records.

Whether the petitioners are regular employees entitled to security of tenure or fixed-term employees without such protection.
Whether the petition should be dismissed due to procedural defects in verification and certification against forum shopping.
Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion in ruling against the regular employment status of the petitioners.