G.R. No. 157966 - Pacquing vs. Coca-Cola Philippines, Inc.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 157966)

Petitioners (employment details)

The petition names the seven former route helpers with their dates of hiring and dismissal provided in the record (e.g., Eddie Pacquing: hired June 14, 1987; dismissed January 30, 1988; other petitioners similarly set out). Petitioners alleged illegal dismissal and sought regularization, recovery of benefits under the CBA, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

Respondent

Coca‑Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., which contended petitioners were temporary workers engaged as substitutes for absent regular employees and/or hired through an independent contractor arrangement, and that their duties were post‑production delivery operations not directly related to the manufacture of soft drinks.

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal filed: October 22, 1996.
Labor Arbiter Decision dismissing complaint: July 5, 2000.
NLRC Resolution dismissing appeal and affirming Labor Arbiter: June 8, 2001; Motion for Reconsideration denied October 31, 2001.
Petition for Certiorari to the Court of Appeals: filed January 25, 2002; CA Decision dismissing petition: November 25, 2002; CA Resolution denying reconsideration: April 15, 2003.
Supreme Court grant of petition and final disposition reversing CA and NLRC (superseding procedural rulings and deciding merits) is reflected in the record (Supreme Court decision referenced in the prompt).

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

1987 Constitution applies. Primary statutory provisions applied: Article 280 (regular and casual employment) and Article 279 (security of tenure) of the Labor Code; applicable NLRC procedural rules (including New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, Section 10 Rule VII); and Rule 45 of the Rules of Court governing petitions for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. The Court applied established jurisprudence on substantial compliance with verification and certification against forum shopping and on the substantive test for regular employment.

Procedural History (summary)

Petitioners filed before a Labor Arbiter alleging illegal dismissal and seeking regularization. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding petitioners temporary and not performing activities necessary to the usual business. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter, partly on procedural grounds that not all complainants had verified the appeal memorandum. The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari primarily for failure to comply with verification/certificate of non‑forum shopping requirements, and it also affirmed the NLRC’s factual finding that the petitioners’ functions were not related to respondent’s main business. Petitioners then sought and obtained Supreme Court review under Rule 45.

Issues Presented to the Court

Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari because three of eight petitioners did not sign the verification and certification against forum shopping.
Whether verification is merely formal and non‑compliance is not fatal, especially in labor cases where technicalities may be relaxed.
Whether the factual and evidentiary conclusions of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC were correct under applicable law.
Whether petitioners should be declared regular employees entitled to reinstatement, backwages, damages, and attorney’s fees.

Court’s Analysis on Verification and Certification Against Forum‑Shopping

The Court acknowledged the general rule that the certificate of non‑forum shopping must be signed by all plaintiffs but emphasized that the rule’s objective—orderly administration of justice—should not be defeated by literalism. The Court reiterated that the certification requirement is mandatory but not jurisdictional and that substantial compliance is permissible in justifiable circumstances. Where multiple petitioners share a common interest and assert a single cause of action, the signature of a representative or of a subset of petitioners may constitute substantial compliance (citing HLC Construction, San Miguel Corp. v. Aballa, and Espina v. Court of Appeals). Applying these precedents, the Court found that five of eight petitioners signed the CA petition’s verification and certification and that petitioners pursued a collective cause of action; thus substantial compliance excused the absence of the other signatures. The Court distinguished Loquias (where co‑defendants were individually charged in separate capacities) as inapplicable because that case involved distinct personal defenses and potential divergent outcomes.

Court’s Analysis on Verification in the NLRC Appeal Memorandum

The Court treated verification of the appeal memorandum before the NLRC as a formal requirement that is not jurisdictional. Citing precedent and the NLRC’s own procedural flexibility (Section 10, Rule VII), the Court held that procedural technicalities in labor cases may be relaxed to serve substantial justice. The appeal memorandum was verified by two complainants on behalf of others; the Court found this to be substantial compliance given the collective nature of the claim and the remedial policies applicable to labor litigation.

Standard of Review and Exceptions Allowing Reexamination of Facts

The Court recognized the general rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding and not ordinarily re‑examined on Rule 45 review, but it reiterated well‑established exceptions permitting review when findings are grounded on speculation, are manifestly mistaken, based on misapprehension of facts, unsupported by citation of evidence, or when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked undisputed material facts, among others. The Court found that exceptions (specifically those corresponding to manifest mistake of fact and misapprehension) applied in this case, thereby permitting review of the factual determinations regarding regularity of employment.

Application of Article 280 and Magsalin Precedent to Regularization

The Court applied Article 280 of the Labor Code (definition of regular employment and casual employment) and followed controlling precedent in Magsalin v. National Organization of Working Men. The relevant test is whether the employee performs activities that are usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s usual business or trade. The Cou

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 157966)

Case Citation, Forum and Disposition

Reported at 567 Phil. 323; 105 OG No. 1, 20 (January 5, 2009).
Third Division of the Supreme Court; G.R. No. 157966, January 31, 2008.
Decision authored by Justice Austria‑Martinez; concurred in by Justices Ynares‑Santiago (Chairperson), Corona, Nachura, and Reyes.
The petition before the Court was a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals Decision dated November 25, 2002 in CA‑G.R. SP No. 68756 and the CA Resolution dated April 15, 2003 denying motion for reconsideration.
Final disposition: Petition granted. The CA Decision and Resolution reversed and set aside. Petitioners declared regular employees of respondent and ordered reinstated with full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or monetary equivalent from date of termination to actual reinstatement.

Parties and Roles

Petitioners: Eddie Pacquing, Roderick Centeno, Juanito M. Guerra, Claro Dupilad, Jr., Louie Centeno, David R. Reblora (spelled as "Rablora" in other parts of the rollo), and Raymundo Andrade (spelled as "Reymundo" elsewhere in the rollo).
Respondent: Coca‑Cola Philippines, Inc. (styled in the source also as Coca‑Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. in earlier proceedings).
The petition originally impleaded the Court of Appeals as respondent; name of the Court of Appeals was deleted from the title pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Factual Background: Employment, Nature of Work, and Termination

Petitioners were sales route helpers (cargadores‑pahinantes) assigned as part of a three‑person complement per delivery truck: a driver, a salesman, and a regular route helper.
Petitioners worked exclusively at respondent’s plants, sales offices, and company premises.
Employment periods (as presented in the source) for each petitioner:
- Eddie P. Pacquing — Hired June 14, 1987; Dismissed January 30, 1988.
- Roderick Centeno — Hired November 15, 1985; Dismissed January 15, 1995.
- Juanito M. Guerra — Hired June 16, 1980; Dismissed February 20, 1995.
- Claro Dupilad, Jr. — Hired March 1, 1992; Dismissed June 30, 1995.
- David R. Reblora — Hired September 15, 1988; Dismissed December 15, 1995.
- Louie Centeno — Hired September 15, 1988; Dismissed March 15, 1996.
- Raymundo Andrade — Hired January 15, 1988; Dismissed October 15, 1995.
Petitioners alleged their work (loading/unloading on delivery trucks) was necessary or desirable to respondent’s usual business and directly related to respondent’s business and trade.
Respondent contended petitioners were temporary workers engaged for five‑month periods as substitutes for absent regular employees and denied regularization and other claims.

Procedural History Through Lower Fora

October 22, 1996: Petitioners filed a Complaint against respondent for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal with claims for regularization, recovery of benefits under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
July 5, 2000: Labor Arbiter Adolfo C. Babiano rendered a Decision dismissing the complaint:
- Labor Arbiter found petitioners were temporary workers hired through an independent contractor and acting as substitutes for regular workforce.
- Labor Arbiter concluded cargadores‑pahinantes work was not necessary or desirable to respondent’s business (manufacture of soft drinks) and thus not regular employment.
August 22, 2000: Petitioners filed a Memorandum of Appeal with the NLRC; the appeal memorandum was verified by only Roderick and Louie Centeno.
October 17, 2000: Respondent filed Opposition to Appeal asserting lack of verification/authority rendered the Labor Arbiter Decision final and executory against the non‑verifying complainants and reiterating substantive defense.
June 8, 2001: NLRC issued a Resolution dismissing the appeal and affirming the Labor Arbiter’s Decision:
- NLRC held non‑verification by most complainants rendered the Labor Arbiter Decision final as to them (lack of authorization shown).
- NLRC held complainants’ duties were post‑production/delivery operations not directly related to respondent’s primary business; thus, not regular employees.
July 7, 2001: Petitioners filed Motion for Reconsideration with the NLRC.
October 31, 2001: NLRC denied reconsideration in a Resolution.
January 25, 2002: Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA); the Verification and Certification against forum shopping was signed by five of eight petitioners (Eddie Pacquing, Roderick Centeno, Juanito M. Guerra, Louie Centeno, and Raymundo Andrade).
November 25, 2002: Court of Appeals rendered a Decision dismissing the petition:
- Dismissal grounded on petitioners’ alleged failure to comply with verification requirement in the petition and appeal memorandum.
- CA cited Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman and held certification/verification defects were fatal.
- CA affirmed NLRC’s factual finding that petitioners’ functions were not related to respondent’s main business.
April 15, 2003: CA denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution.
Petitioners filed the present petition before the Supreme Court raising procedural and substantive issues.

Issues Raised Before the Supreme Court

Whether the CA erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari because three out of eight petitioners failed to affix signatures in the Verification and Certification against forum shopping.
Whether verification is merely a matter of form and non‑compliance does not render the pleading fatally defective, and whether CA departed from prevailing doctrine.
Whether findings and conclusions of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC accord with evidence, jurisprudence, labor laws, statutes and constitutional mandates favorable to petitioners.
Whether petitioners should be declared regular employees and entitled to reinstatement, backwages, damages, and attorney’s fees.

Petitioners’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court

Non‑signature by three petitioners on the CA petition’s verification and certification against forum shopping was not fatal because verification is a matter of form and non‑compliance does not render a pleading fatally defective.
Lack of signatures in the verification of the NLRC appeal memorandum was not fatal because technicalities should have no room in labor cases.
Petitioners argued they are regular employees, having been employed for more than one year and performing functions necessary to respondent’s business.

Respondent’s Contentions Before the Supreme Court

Petitioners’ non‑compliance with procedural rules (verification, certification) must not be countenanced.
Petition for review seeks evaluation of evidence and factual findings of CA and NLRC which is beyond the scope of Rule 45 petitions that entertain only questions of law.

Supreme Court’s Threshold Analysis on Verification and Certification (Formality vs. Jurisdictional)

General rule: Certificate of non‑forum shopping must be signed by all plaintiffs; signature of only one is generally insufficient.
The Court emphasized that forum‑shopping rules are designed to promote orderly administration of justice and should not be interpreted so literally as to subvert their objective.
The certification requirement is mandatory but not jurisdictional; strict compliance is important yet substantial compliance may suffice under justifiable circumstances.
When petitioners share a common interest and