COCA-COLA BO11LLRS (PHILS.), INC. and LRIC MON1INOLA v.

SOCIAL SLCURI1Y COMMISSION and DR. DLAN CLIMACO

G.R. No. JS9323, 3J July 2008, 1HIRD DIVISION, (Reyes, J.)

1be cov.otiaatea ^RC ca.e. cavvot be cov.iaerea a. reriov.t, iv.titvtea cirit actiov. v erbari r.
Covceciov, it ra. beta tbat a re;vaiciat qve.tiov i. vvaer.tooa iv tar to be tbat rbicb vv.t receae tbe crivivat actiov,
tbat rbicb reqvire. a aeci.iov ritb rbicb .aia qve.tiov i. cto.et, retatea.

In 1988 petitioner Coca-Cola Bottlers ,Phils.,, Inc. ,Coke, and priate respondent Dr. Dean
Climaco ,Climaco, entered into a retainer agreement where he can charge proessional ees in line with
his specialization. 1he agreement also proided that either party may terminate the contract upon due
notice and that no employer-employee relationship shall exist between Coke and Climaco while the
contract is in eect.

Ater seeral years, Climaco asked the Department o Labor and Lmployment ,DOLL, and
Social Security System ,SSS, i he was an employee o the company. 1he agencies said yes and Climaco
then iled a complaint beore the National Labor and Relations Commission ,NLRC, seeking
recognition as a regular employee o Coke and asking or his beneits ,i.e. 13
th
month pay, holiday pay,
etc.,. During the pendency o the complaint, Coke terminated the contract with Climaco, thus leading to
another complaint by Climaco beore the NLRC against Coke or illegal dismissal.

1he NLRC dismissed both complaints o Climaco`s but the Court o Appeals reersed the ruling
saying that an employer-employee relationship between Coke and Climaco exists. Also, while the NLRC
cases were pending, Climaco iled with the Social Security Commission ,SSC, a petition praying that
Coke be ordered to report him or compulsory social security coerage. 1he SSC ordered that the case
be remanded to the SSS Bacolod oice or reception o eidence o the parties.

ISSUL:

\hether or not a prejudicial question exists upon the iling o two complaints by Climaco beore
the NLRC

HLLD:

Petition DLNILD.

No prejudicial question exists

Coke alleges that Climaco preiously iled separate complaints beore the NLRC seeking
recognition as a regular employee. Necessarily then, a just resolution o these cases hinge on a
determination o whether or not Climaco is an employee o the company. 1he issue o whether Climaco
is entitled to employee beneits, as prayed or in the NLRC cases, is closely intertwined with the issue o
whether Climaco is an employee o the company who is subject to compulsory coerage under the SSS
Law. lence, they argue, said regularization,illegal dismissal case is a prejudicial question.

1he argument is untenable.

1he Court`s concept o prejudicial question was lited rom Spain, where ciil cases are tried
exclusiely by ciil courts, while criminal cases are tried exclusiely in criminal courts. Lach kind o
court is jurisdictionally distinct rom and independent o the other. In the Philippines, howeer, courts
are inariably tribunals o general jurisdiction. 1his means that courts here exercise jurisdiction oer
both ciil and criminal cases. 1hus, it is not impossible that the criminal case, as well as the ciil case in
which a prejudicial question may rise, may be both pending in the same court. lor this reason, the
elements o prejudicial question hae been modiied in such a way that the phrase pendency o the ciil
case in a dierent tribunal` has been eliminated.

1he rule is that there is prejudicial question when (a) the previously instituted civil
action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent
criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal
action may proceed. It comes into play generally in a situation where a ciil action and a criminal action
both pend and there exists in the ormer an issue which must be preemptiely resoled beore the
criminal action may proceed. 1his is so because howsoeer the issue raised in the ciil action is resoled
would be determinatie ;vri. et ae ;vre o the guilt or innocence o the accused in the criminal case.

lere, no prejudicial question exists because there is no pending criminal case. 1he
consolidated NLRC cases cannot be considered as preiously instituted ciil action.` In erbari r.
Covceciov, it was held that a prejudicial question is understood in law to be that which must precede
the criminal action, that which requires a decision with which said question is closely related.

Neither can the doctrine of prejudicial question be applied by analogy. 1he issue in the
case iled by Climaco with the SSC inoles the question o whether or not he is an employee o Coca-
Cola Bottlers ,Phils.,, Inc. and subject to the compulsory coerage o the Social Security System. On the
contrary, the cases iled by Climaco beore the NLRC inoled dierent issues. In his irst complaint,
Climaco sought recognition as a regular employee o the company and demanded payment o his 13th
month pay, cost o liing allowance, holiday pay, serice incentie leae pay, Christmas bonus and all
other beneits. 1he second complaint was or illegal dismissal, with prayer or reinstatement to his
ormer position as company physician o the company`s Bacolod Plant, without loss o seniority rights,
with ull payment o backwages, other unpaid beneits, and or payment o damages. 1hus, the issues in
the NLRC cases are not determinatie o whether or not the SSC should proceed. It is settled that the
question claimed to be prejudicial in nature must be determinatie o the case beore the court.

Lidently, there is no another action` pending between Coke and Climaco at the time when the
latter iled a petition beore the SSC.