ccbpi v agito

8/12/2019 Ccbpi v Agito

1/3

CCBPI v AgitoGR 179546 February 13, 2009

FACT!

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines is a domestic corporation duly registered with the

SEC and engaged in the manufacturing, bottling and distributing soft drinkbeverages and other products.

espondents !led before the "#C two complaints against petitioner, $nterserve,

Peerless $ntegrated Servics $nc., Better Builders $nc, and E%cellent partners forrei"#tate$e"t %it& ba'(%age#, regu)ari*atio", "o"+ay$e"t o- 13t&$o"t& ay a". .a$ages.

Re#o".e"t# a))ege.that they were salesmen assigned at the #agro Sales

&'ce of the petitioner. (nd that they had been employed by CCBP$ but neverregulari)ed.

*he respondents were terminated without and +ust cause and due process.

Petitio"er# o" t&e ot&er &a". a))ege. that the respondents were not their

employees but of $nterserve who they had contracted to rovi.e t&e #ervi'esthey need for their company. *his is pursuant to the Co"tra't o- ervi'e#e%ecuted between the Petitioner and $nterserve. *he said contract between thepetitioner and $nterserve constituted a )egiti$ate /ob 'o"tra'ti"g given that$nterserve was an independent contractor with substantial capital or investmentin the form of tools, euipment and machinery in the conduct of its business.

*he petitioners presented pieces of evidence to prove the status of $nterserve as

an independent contractor such as / the (rticles of $ncorporation of $nterserve,0/ Certi!cate of egistration of $nterserve with B$ 1/ $ncome *a% eturn with(udited 2inancial Statements of $nterserve, 1/ Certi!cate of egistration of

$nterserve as a" i".ee".e"t /ob 'o"tra'tor, issued by 3E

#abor (rbiter4 o $)oyer+$)oyee Re)atio"#&i. $nterserve was an

independent contractor as evidenced by its substantial assets and registrationwith the 3E.

"#C! Ar$e. abor Arbiter# e'i#io"5 $n addition, $nterserve hired and

paid the respondents6 wages, paid and remitted their SSS, 7edicare, and PagibigContribuions.

C( Petition for Certiorari4 Rever#e. RC I"ter#erve %a# a )abor o")y

'o"tra'torwith insu'cient funds and investment with only P 89,999 investedin its service vehicles and P 099, 999 in its machineries and euipment. :ith this

$nterserve would be di'cult for interserve to meet the demands of Petitioner. (sa matter of fact, it was the Petitioner6s euipment, tools and facilities that therespondents use in the day-to day sales operation. (dditionaly, Petitioner hadcontrol over the means and methods of respondent6s work evidenced by 3ailySales 7onitoring eport, Conventional oute System Proposed Set-up and thememoranda issued by the supervisor.

Contract of Service e%ecuted by Petitioner and $nterserve did not involve a

speci!c +ob but supply manpower.


2/3

I!

:hether or "ot $nterserve is a legitimate +ob contractor.$s there an employer-employee relationship between Petitioner and

espondents;


3/3

(n independent contractor should have the discretion over the pace at which the

work is performed and arrange the number of workers to complete the same.

*he Contract of Service between $nterserve and petitioner did not identify the

work needed to be performed and the !nal result reuired to be accomplished,

instead it only speci!ed the type of workers $nterseve must provide thepetitioner oute Aelpers, Salesmen, 3rivers, Clericals, Encode P3/

*he (rticles of $ncorporation of $nterserve is misleading. $t shows that that the

principal business of $nterseve is to provide +anitorial and allied services. *hedelivery and distribution of Coca-Cola products were no any way allied to

+anitorial services.

Petitio"er i# t&e true e$)oyer o- t&e re#o".e"t#

ccbpi v agito

Documents