G.R. No. 8956 - People vs. Valera Ang Y

Complainants, who were route helpers, allege that they were directly hired by Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. from as early as 1984 up to 2000.
Their primary tasks involved delivering bottled Coca-Cola products to stores and customers within their assigned areas, with compensation comprising basic salaries plus commissions averaging around P3,000.00 per month.

After years of direct employment, complainants were successively transferred to agency employment through various manpower agencies, including Lipercon Services, Inc., People's Services, Inc., ROMAC, and most recently, Interserve Management and Manpower Resources, Inc.
This transfer allegedly changed their status from being regular employees of Coca-Cola to contractual workers under the agencies.

The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) conducted an inspection to determine whether Coca-Cola complied with mandated labor standards; the inspection supported the claim that complainants were regular employees.
As a result, the complainants claimed that Coca-Cola was liable for various benefits, including underpaid 13th month pay and emergency cost of living allowance (ECOLA).

Upon learning of the filing of their claims with DOLE, Coca-Cola allegedly dismissed the complainants on different dates in January 2004.
Although some claims were later settled, issues regarding their reinstatement and the payment of collective bargaining agreement (CBA) benefits remained unresolved, prompting the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal on November 10, 2006.

Complainants offered substantial evidence in the form of long-standing service records, personal data sheets, payslips, tax records, Social Security System (SSS) and Pag-Ibig records, and employee identification cards that explicitly stated their status as direct hires of Coca-Cola.
They also cited jurisprudence (e.g., CCBPI vs. NOWM) to reinforce that long-term engagement as route helpers affirmed their regular employment, despite any contractual changes to agency work.

Coca-Cola maintained that there was no direct employer-employee relationship with the complainants once they were transferred; it instead asserted that the complainants had been hired by Interserve, an alleged independent contractor.
Respondent Interserve claimed that it managed the selection, assignment, attendance monitoring, and payment processes of the complainants, thereby operating independently from Coca-Cola.
Coca-Cola argued that the evidence, particularly the service agreements, payroll records, and affidavits (notably from Interserve’s coordinator, Mr. Sambilay), supported the notion that the complainants were not direct employees but rather contractual workers of Interserve.

Whether the complainants are to be considered regular employees of Coca-Cola or merely employees of Interserve as part of an independent job contracting arrangement.
Whether the subsequent employment arrangement—via various manpower agencies—negated their right to security of tenure as regular employees.

The validity and legal effect of the service agreements entered into between Coca-Cola and Interserve after the complainants were already in service.
Whether the evidentiary record supports Interserve’s claim of being an independent contractor with the sole power to hire, pay, and control the complainants.
Whether the termination of the complainants’ services was justified based on legally recognized grounds when, if at all, the direct employment relationship had effectively ended.
The proper application of the doctrine of stare decisis, particularly when past precedents have consistently identified similar workers as regular employees of Coca-Cola.