Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs.

Dela Cruz
DOCTRINES
Where the contractors were merely suppliers of labor, the contracted
personnel, engaged in component functions in the main business of the
company under the latters supervision and control, cannot but be regular
company employees.
SUMMARY:
Respondents Dela Cruz et. al wanted to be regular employees of Coca-cola
hence they filed a complaint. They alleged that as route helpers, their jobs are
necessary and desirable to the usual business of company. Coca-cola denied
this by saying that it entered intro contract of services with Peerless and
Excellent. Issue is w/n CA erred in finding that there was ER-EE. NO. The court
found out that the contractors obligation was merely to supply labor. In
addition, taking into account nature and the complexity of cocas business
meant that respondents were really necessary and desirable in the regular
business of petitioner.
FACTS
Respondents Dela Cruz and company filed complaints with money claims for
regularization against Coca-Cola Bottlers (company) and Peers Integrated
Service (contractor1). Respondents claim to be regular employees based on the
fact that they are route helpers which are necessary and desirable to regular
business of the employer. They also claimed that they worked under the control
and supervision of the company while the contractors did not have sufficient
capital making said contract a labor-only contract. The company denied the
relationship stating that they entered into contracts of services with Peers and
Excellent (contractor2) who retained the right to select, hire, dismiss,
supervise, control and discipline and pay the salaries of all personnel. They also
pointed out that they are in the business of manufacturing, not distribution,
hence not necessary and desirable
ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in holding that there was an ER-EE. (NO)
HELD:
The CA noted that both the contracts for Peerless and the Excellent show that
their obligation was solely to provide the company with the services of
contractual employees, and nothing more. These contracted services were for
the handling and delivery of the companys products and allied services.
Following D.O. 18-02 and the contracts that spoke purely of the supply of labor.
The case of Magsalin described in a very significant way the manufacture of
softdrinks and the companys sales and distribution activities in relation with
one another. The CA was correct when it concluded that the contracted
personnel who served as route helpers were really engaged in functions

directly related to the overall business of the petitioner. This led to the further
CA conclusion that the contracted personnel were under the companys
supervision and control since sales and distribution were in fact not the
purported contractors independent, discrete and separable activities, but were
component parts of sales and distribution operations that the company
controlled in its soft drinks business.