Coca Cola Phil vs Agito GR No.

179546

FACTS:

Petitioner (Coke) is a domestic corporation engaged in manufacturing, bottling and distributing soft drink beverages and other allied
products. Respondents were salesmen assigned at Coke Lagro Sales Office for years but were not regularized. Coke averred that respondents
were employees of Interserve who were tasked to perform contracted services in accordance with the provisions of the Contract of Services
executed between Coke and Interserve on 23 March 2002. Said Contract constituted legitimate job contracting, given that the latter was a bona
fide independent contractor with substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, and machinery necessary in the conduct of
its business.

To prove the status of Interserve as an independent contractor, petitioner presented the following pieces of evidence: (1) the Articles
of Incorporation of Interserve; (2) the Certificate of Registration of Interserve with the Bureau of Internal Revenue; (3) the Income Tax Return,
with Audited Financial Statements, of Interserve for 2001; and (4) the Certificate of Registration of Interserve as an independent job contractor,
issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). As a result, petitioner asserted that respondents were employees of Interserve,
since it was the latter which hired them, paid their wages, and supervised their work, as proven by: (1) respondents’ Personal Data Files in the
records of Interserve; (2) respondents’ Contract of Temporary Employment with Interserve; and (3) the payroll records of Interserve.

ISSUE:
Whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists between petitioner Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc. and respondents.
HELD:
With the finding that Interserve was engaged in prohibited labor-only contracting, petitioner shall be deemed the true employer of
respondents. As regular employees of petitioner, respondents cannot be dismissed except for just or authorized causes, none of which were
alleged or proven to exist in this case, the only defense of petitioner against the charge of illegal dismissal being that respondents were not its
employees. Records also failed to show that petitioner afforded respondents the twin requirements of procedural due process, i.e., notice and
hearing, prior to their dismissal. Respondents were not served notices informing them of the particular acts for which their dismissal was
sought. Nor were they required to give their side regarding the charges made against them. Certainly, the respondents’ dismissal was not
carried out in accordance with law and, therefore, illegal.