Title
Coca Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 120466
Decision Date
May 17, 1999
A janitor hired by an independent contractor (BJS) for Coca-Cola sought regularization, claiming employment with Coca-Cola. The Supreme Court ruled no employer-employee relationship existed, affirming BJS as the legitimate employer and ordering wage differentials.
janitor
illegal dismissal
underpayment of wages
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 120466)

Facts:

  • Parties and challenged labor rulings
    • Petitioner Coca Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (COCA COLA) filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court assailing the 3 January 1995 decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
    • The NLRC decision held that private respondent Ramon B. Canonicato was a regular employee of COCA COLA, entitling him to reinstatement and back wages.
    • The NLRC decision reversed the 28 April 1994 decision of the Labor Arbiter.
    • The Labor Arbiter found that no employer-employee relationship existed between COCA COLA and Canonicato, thereby foreclosing reinstatement and back wages.
  • Contractual arrangement between COCA COLA and Bacolod Janitorial Services
    • On 7 April 1986, COCA COLA entered into a contract of janitorial services with Bacolod Janitorial Services (BJS).
    • The contract stipulated that COCA COLA desired to engage the services of BJS as an independent contractor to provide maintenance, sanitation, and cleaning services within COCA COLA premises.
    • The contract scope included daily and weekly cleaning and related work covering floors, walls, doors, vertical and horizontal areas, ceilings, windows and glass surfaces, partitions, furniture, fixtures and other interiors.
    • The contract required tasks such as sweeping, damp-mopping, spot scrubbing and polishing; cleaning and disinfecting commodes, urinals, and washbasins; cleaning glass surfaces and windows requiring daily attention; dusting horizontal and vertical surfaces; cleaning fixtures, counters, panels, and sills; picking up cigarette butts and trash disposal and burning.
    • Weekly tasks included cleaning, waxing, and polishing lobbies and offices; washing windows and glasses requiring cleaning; and disinfecting and cleaning toilets and washrooms.
    • The contract required BJS to supply necessary utensils, equipment, and supervision, and to employ fifteen (15) carefully screened personnel.
    • The contract guaranteed against unsatisfactory workmanship and provided that minor comfort-room repairs were free of charge if COCA COLA supplied materials at its expense.
    • The contract arrangement continued through subsequent annual service contracts until about May 1994.
  • COCA COLA’s prior hiring of Canonicato and subsequent contractual and assignment work
    • On 26 October 1989, COCA COLA hired Canonicato as a casual employee and assigned him to the bottling crew as a substitute for absent employees.
    • In April 1990, COCA COLA terminated Canonicato’s casual employment.
    • Later in 1990, COCA COLA availed of Canonicato’s services as a painter in contractual projects lasting fifteen (15) to thirty (30) days.
  • Canonicato’s hiring by BJS and assignment to COCA COLA
    • On 1 April 1991, Canonicato was hired as a janitor by BJS.
    • BJS assigned him to COCA COLA considering his familiarity with COCA COLA premises.
    • On 5 and 7 March 1992, Canonicato started painting COCA COLA facilities and continued painting several months thereafter, intermittently, for a few days at a time until 6 to 25 June 1993.
    • The painting jobs were performed on specified dates including 27–29 March 1992, 19, 22, and 29 August 1992, 5, 12, 28, and 29 September 1992, 3, 11, and 31 October 1992, 14 December 1992, 10, 17–20 January 1993, 1–6, 20, and 27 February 1993, and 6, 10, 15–17, 19, and 20 March 1995, and 1, 9, and 14 May 1993.
  • Canonicato’s complaint against COCA COLA and amendment
    • Canonicato was prompted by information that COCA COLA employed previous BJS employees who filed complaints for regularization pursuant to a compromise agreement.
    • On 8 June 1993, Canonicato filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter against COCA COLA for regularization.
    • The complaint was docketed as RAB Case No. 06-06-10337-93.
    • Without notifying BJS, Canonicato stopped reporting to his COCA COLA assignment starting 29 June 1993.
    • On 15 July 1993, Canonicato sent his sister Rowena to collect his salary from BJS.
    • BJS released the salary but told Rowena to instruct Canonicato to report for work.
    • Canonicato claimed he was barred from entering COCA COLA premises on either 14 or 15 July 1993.
    • He met Gloria Lacson, the proprietress of BJS, who offered him assignments in other firms, which he refused.
    • On 23 July 1993, Canonicato amended his complaint against COCA COLA to allege illegal dismissal and underpayment of wages, and he included BJS as a co-respondent.
  • BJS’s notice to Canonicato and his non-return
    • On 28 September 1993, BJS sent Canonicato a letter advising him to report for work within three (3) days from receipt or be considered to have abandoned his job.
    • The factual course includes a dispute over whether Canonicato was barred from premises and whether his refusal to accept other assignments reflected abandonment.
  • Labor Arbiter’s ruling dated 28 April 1994
    • On 28 April 1994, the Labor Arbiter ruled that:
      • There was no employer-employee relationship between COCA COLA and Canonicato because BJS was Canonicato’s real employer.
      • BJS was a legitimate job contractor.
      • Any liability of COCA COLA as to Canonicato’s salary or wage differentials was solidary with BJS under pars. 1 and 2 of Art. 106, Labor Code.
    • The Labor Arbiter ordered COCA COLA and BJS to jointly and severally pay:
      • Wage differentials of P2,776.80.
      • Thirteenth month pay ...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Whether the NLRC erred in finding an employer-employee relationship between COCA COLA and Canonicato
    • Whether Canonicato was regular and entitled to reinstatement and back wages as an employee of COCA COLA.
    • Whether the NLRC correctly applied Art. 280 of the Labor Code in the first place when the existence of an employment relationship was disputed.
  • Whether the janitorial arrangement with BJS constituted legitimate independent contractorship
    • Whether BJS satisfied the requirements of a legitimate job contractor.
    • Whether BJS exercised the control and performed the selection and engagement, wage payment, and dismissal functions with respect to Canonicato.
  • Whether the NLRC’s factual approach conflicted with its own findings
      • ...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms