Coca-Cola Bottlers Ph.

v Agito
Topic: Job Contracting

Facts:
1. The case concerns a dispute involving the status of employees of a labor-contractor
(Interserve Manpower Services) which provides workers to petitioner (Coca-cola Bottlers
PH).
2. Petitioner, with respect to its business of manufacturing, bottling, and distributing soft drink
beverages, entered into a contract with Interserve Manpower Services who provided the
petitioner with salesmen.
3. Respondent salesmen were later on terminated which prompted them to file a case for illegal
dismissal before the Labor Arbiter.
4. LA: found the workers as employees of Interserve. The LA considered the fact that
Interserve was registered with DOLE and with sufficient assets.
a. Workers appealed to the NLRC claiming that their work was indispensable and
necessary to the business of Coke and that they made use of the equipment and
capital of Coke and not of Interserve
5. NLRC: Affirmed the LA. No EE-ER relationship existed between coke and the workers.
6. CA: Reversed the NLRC. Held that the workers performed functions directly related and
necessary to the main business of the petitioner. Further, it held that the Contract
between the parties did not involve a specific job but rather a supply of manpower.

Issue: Whether an entity who provides services which are not in line with the purpose of its
corporate purpose is deemed a labor-only contractor.

Held: Yes, it is deemed a labor-only contractor.

Ratio:
1. At the outset, the contractor, and not the employee, has the burden of proof that it has (1)
substantial capital, (2) investment, and (3) tools to engage in job contracting. This burden shall
also be borne by the principal company if it invokes the provider’s status as independent job
contractor.
a. Here, Interserve and Coke failed to discharge such burden. They failed to show that
Interserve had sufficient capital as investment in tools and equipment necessary for
the discharge of the duties of the respondents as salesmen. (no sevice vehicles,
equipment, etc.)
b. In addition, Interserve’s corporate purpose shows that it is a provider of janitorial and
allied services. This does not include salesmen and leadmen.
2. In sum, Interserve did not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools,
equipment, machineries, and work premises; and respondents, its supposed employees,
performed work which was directly related to the principal business of petitioner.
3. Hence, the respondent employees are regular employees of Coke who have the right to receive
backwages and to be reinstated accordingly.